■i    . 


v. 


oh„\, 


nsrii^TE:  rBXDiTionsr. 


Notes  oa^  vI;- 

^'r     Ingersoll 


BY 

REV.  L.A.LAMBERT, 


One  Hundred  and  Twenty-Fifth  Thousand. 


■h 


OijiOALor 


AX'^^ 


BL  2727  .L3  1886 
Lambert,  L.  A.  1835-1910 
Notes  on  Ingersoll 


NOTES  ON  INGERSOLL 


EY 

REV.    L.    A.    LAMBERT 


OF  WATERLOO,  N.  Y. 


PREFACE    BY 


REV.   PATRICK  CRONIN 


NINTH    EDITION. 


BUFFALO.   N.  Y. : 

BUFFALO  CATHOLIC  PUBLICATION  COMPANY. 

1886. 


Copyright,  1883. 

Buffalo  Catholic  Publication  Co. 
All  Rights  Reserved. 


Excelsior 

Electrotype  Foundry. 

Wf.st  Sbneca,  N.  Y. 


St.  Stephen  s  Hall, 
Buffalo,  N.  Y.,  Feb.  \c.th,  1886. 

TO  THIS    NINTH   edition   of   "Notes"   is   added  a 
very   fait'nfnl  portrait    and   a   brief    though   rather 
imperfect,  sketcli  of_  the  author's  life. 

BIOGRAPHICAL  SKETCH  OF   THE   AUTHOR. 

Father  Lambert  lias  been  the  pastor  of  St.  Mary's 
Church,  in  Waterloo,  for  over  sixteen  years,  having  been 
appointed  to  that  parish  October  i8th,  1869.  He  still 
holds  the  position,  and  isenslirined  in  the  affections  of  his 
people.  His  genial,  gentlemanly,  and  courteous  ways, 
win  the  friendship  of  those  witli  whom  he  associates, 
while  his  sciiolarly  attainments,  good  judgment  in  matters, 
both  public  and  private,  and  his  genuine  Christian  char- 
acter, command  the  respect  and  admiration  of  all.  His 
"Notes  on  IngersoU,"  in  which  he  meets  the  bold  blas- 
phemer on  his  own  grounds,  and  shows  up  the  absurdity 
and  hollow  falsity  of  his  reasoning,  have  pricked  the 
bubble  of  infidelity  until  there  is  nothing  more  to  argue 
This  work  of  Father  Lambert  has  broken  down  the  bar- 
riers of  sectarianism,  until  those  who  were  brought  up  in 


iV  THE    AUTHOR. 

a  different  religious  faith,  take  him  cordially  by  the  hand 
as  a  vigorous  and  successful  defender  of  Christianity, 
They  strike  the  key-note  of  popular  interest  and  find  a 
response  in  the  cordial  welcome  they  receive. 

Rev.  Father  Lambert  was  born  in  Allenport,  Washington 
County,  Pennsylvania,  February  nth,  1835.  His  father 
came  to  America  in  181 1,  from  Inniscorthy,  Wexford 
County,  Ireland,  in  company  with  his  uncle,  the  Right 
Reverend  Dr.  Lambert,  second  Bishop  of  St.  John's,  New 
Foundland.  His  mother,  Lydia  Jones,  was  of  English 
descent,  her  ancestors  coming  to  this  countrj^with  the 
Colony  of  William  Penn.  She  was  a  member  of  the 
Society  of  Friends,  until  her  conversion  to  the  Catholic 
Faith. 

In  1854  Louis  A.  Lambert,  then  19  years  of  age,  began 
his  classical  studies  at  St.  Vincent's  College,  Westmore- 
land County,  Pa.,  .and  finished  his  ecclesiastical  studies 
in  the  Archdiocesan  Seminary  of  St.  Louis,  at  Carondelet, 
Missouri.  In  1859  he  was  ordained  a  priest  for  the  Dio- 
cese of  Alton,  Illinois.  Immediately  thereafter  he  was 
appointed  assistant  pastor  of  Cairo,  111.,  fron>  which  place 
he  attended  the  wants  of  the  Catholics  scattered  through 
the  southern  tier  of  counties  bordering  on  the  Ohio 
River,  and  extending  from  the  Mississippi  to  the  Wabash. 
Shortly  after,  Father  Lambert  was  appointed  pastor  of 
liie  Cathedral  of  Alton.  P>om  there  he  was  sent  to  the 
mission  of  Shawneetown,  in  Southeastern  Illinois,  which 
included  the  counties  of  Gallatin,  White.  Hamilton,  Sa- 
line, Pope  and  Johnson. 

While  in  the  faithful  discharge  of  his  duties,  the  war 
of  the  rebellion  broke  out,  and  a  commission  was  issued 
to  Father  Lambert  from  the  authorities  at  headquarters 
in    Springfield,  111.,  signed    by  Richard    Yates,  Governor 


THE    AUTHOR.  Y 

of  the  State;  A.  C.  Fuller,  Adjutant  General,  and  O.  M. 
Hatcli,  Secretary  of  State.  This  official  document  was 
issued  to  him  as  Chaplain  of  the  Eighteenth  Regiment  of 
Illinois  Infantry  Volunteers,  to  rank  as  Captain  of  Cav- 
alry from  July  ist,  1861.  He  remained  with  the  reg- 
iment through  their  campaigns  in  Missouri,  Kentucky, 
Tennessee  and  Mississippi,  sharing  the  perils  and  hard- 
ships of  soldier  life  with  other  members  of  the  regiment. 
He  was  in  the  terrible  battle  of  Shiloh,  or  Pittsburgh 
Landing,  and  other  engagements,  ministering  to  the 
spiritual  and  temporal  wants  of  the  soldiers,  and  encourag- 
ing and  sustaining  them  in  the  duties  that  try  men's  souls, 
After  about  two  years'  service  in  the  army,  he  was  ap- 
pointed pastor  of  Cairo,  111.,  where  he  remained  until 
1868.  On  leaving  Cairo,  he  taught  Moral  Theology  and 
Philosophy  at  the  Paulist  Novitiate,  in  Fifty-Ninth  street. 
New  York  City.  From  there  he  went  to  Seneca  Falls, 
where  he  remained  but  a  short  time,  when  he  was  ap- 
pointed pastor  of  St.  Mary's  Church,  Waterloo. 

In  1877  he  founded  the  Catholic  Times  at  Waterloo, 
N.  Y.,  a  journal  devoted  to  Catholic  interests.  The  pa- 
per at  once  took  rank  as  a  leader  amongst  Catholic  jour- 
nals, was  edited  with  marked  ability,  and,  in  a  very  short 
lime,  secured  a  large  circulation  in  Central,  Southern,  and 
Western  New  York.  Early  in  1880,  finding  the  work 
growing  on  him,  the  Catholic  Times  Publishing  Company, 
of  Rochester,  was  organized,  and  the  paper  removed  to  that 
city.  Father  Lambert  relinquishing  the  editorial  chair  to 
Mr.  Francis  O'Connor.  In  the  fall  of  '81  the  Titnes  was 
consolidated  with  the  Union  of  Buffalo,  and  is  now  known 
as  The  Catholic  Union  atid  Times,  Father  Lambert  always 
retaining  a  friendly  interest  in  his  journalistic  offspring. 

Among   his  literary   works  is  a  very  valuable  book  en- 


s'\  THE    AUTHOR. 

litled  "Thesaurus  Biblicus;  or  Hand-book  of  Scripture 
Reference,"  which  is  a  mountain  of  scholarly  research 
and  patient  toil.  The  nature  of  the  work  does  not  make 
it  in  such  popular  demand  as  his  "Notes  on  Ingersoll," 
but  it  is  none  the  less  profound,  and  is  most  highly  prized 
by  all  scholars  and  students  of  Scripture.  Another  work 
is  a  translation  from  the  German,  entitled  "The  Christian 
Father."  In  these,  and  in  the  many  articles  for  the  press, 
from  Father  Lambert's  pen,  there  shines  forth  the  intel- 
lectual brightness  of  the  author,  while  their  tone  and 
sentiment  impress  the  reader  with  his  goodness  of  heart. 
It  is  no  flattery  to  say  that  he  Tanks  high  in  the  priest- 
hood  and  in  the  community,  that  he  is  widely  and  most 
favorably  known  as  one  who  lives  in  the  serene  enjoy- 
ment of  a  well-balanced  mind,  a  sound  body,  a  healthful, 
well-cultivated  intellect,  and  a  calm,  dignified  conscious- 
ness of  living  an  exemplary  life  in  the  faithful  discharge 
of  his  duties  to  his  fellow-men  and  to  his  God.  It  is  the 
wish  of  the  people,  amongst  whom  he  resides,  that  he  may 
long  be  retained  as  pastor  of  St.  Mary's  Church,  and 
that  his  health,  strength,  and  usefulness,  may  not  be  im- 
paired for  many  years  to  come. 

We  are  largely  indebted  for  the  above  to  the  Seneca 

County  News. 

Buffalo  Catw^i.ic  Publication  Co 


PREFACE. 

THESE  '*  Notes  on  Ingersoll/'  by  the  Reverend 
Louis  A.  Lambert,  of  Waterloo,  New  York,  have 
already  appeared  in  the  columns  of  the  Buffalo  Union  and 
Ti?nes,  much  to  the  delight  of  readers  of  that  journal; 
they  have  also  been  extensively  copied  and  commented 
upon  by  the  Catholic  press  throughout  the  country.  They 
are,  unquestionably,  the  most  crushing  reply  yet  made 
to  that  notorious  little  fraud — IngersoU — who  so  loves 
to  pose  as  a  profoundly  original  thinker;  and  who  lives, 
moves,  and  has  his  being,  m  the  laughter  and  applause 
which  his  fescennine  buffoonery  provokes.  Regarding 
them  as  a  complete  annihilation  of  the  pretentious 
scoffer,  and  desirous  that  they  should  reach  a  much  larger 
public  than  could  be  secured  by  any  newspaper,  however 
widely  circulated,  the  present  writer  pointed  out  to  the 
author  the  advisability  of  having  just  such  writings  as  the 
"  Notes"  spread  broadcast  in  the  interest  of  Religion, 
especially  at  this  time;  and  earnestly  urged  their  publica- 
tion in  tlie  present  form. 

Would  that  those,  whose  minds  have  been  poisoned  by 
the  specious  pen  and  brilliant  rhetoric  of  our  American 
arch-blasphemer,  could  read  these  "  Notes"!  They  would 
then  see  how  untruthful  in  statement,  illogical  in  reason- 
ing, dishonest  in  inference,  vile  in  innuendo,  and  malev- 
olent in  purpose,  is  the  man  upon  whose  every  utterance 


Vin  PREFACE. 

they  hung  with  delight.  With  cold,  relentless  cruelty, 
Father  Lambert  pursues  Ingersoll,  in  these  pages,  step  by 
step,  piercing  him  with  keen  Damascus  blade  at  every 
turn; — aye,  dissecting  him  to  the  very  marrow  of  his 
bones— and  then  holds  him  up,  like  another  unmasked 
Mokanna,  to  the  contempt  and  scorn  of  mankind. 

Herein,  too,  is  sliown  that  this  profoundly  original 
thinker  is  the  veriest  of  plagiarists,  palming  off,  as  his 
own,  the  worn-out  objections  of  the  infidels  of  other  days, 
which  have  been  answered  hundreds  of  times.  Yea,  verily, 
this  valiant  knight,  of  the  theological  tourn^.ment,  is  noth- 
ing but  a  fraudulent  peddler  of  old  infidel  junk.  He 
pretends  to  bring  to  the  polemical  market,  jewels  rich  and 
rare,  but  they  are  only  well-worn  paste,  which,  even  when 
new,  were  worthless. 

Oh!  that  we  had  to-day  more  Father  Lamberts,  es- 
pecially in  these  United  States,  to  give  us  opportune 
pamphlets  like  this;  and  thus  make  short  work  of  the 
blatant  revilers  of  all  revealed  truth,  who,  like  a  reptile 
brood,  hiss  forth  their  venom  against  Christ  and  his  Church. 
Liberty,  honor,  heroism,  self-sacrifice,  and  similar  high- 
sounding  phrases,  are  continually  on  the  lips  of  these 
sophists;  whilst  they  would  fain  persuade  the  world  that 
the  Christian  religion  is  something  that  enslaves  and  de- 
grades. But  there  is  no  slavery  so  galling  as  the  slavery 
of  unbelief.  It  is  the  truth  that  makes  us  free.  Neither 
is  there  intolerance  like  unto  the  intolerance  of  Infidelity. 
And  as  for  honor,  self-sacrifice,  heroism,  and  those  other 
natural  virtues  that  ennoble  human  nature — destroy  the 
belief  in  a  Hereafter,  deny  future  rewards  and  punish- 
ments— and  how  long  will  they  flourish?    Infidelity  knows 


PREFACE-  IX 

ne  standard  of  Right  and  Wrong;  and  such  standard  is 
the  corner-stone  upon  which  society  rests. 

As  may  be  observed,  these  ''Notes"  are  written  from 
the  broadest  Christian  standpoint;  so  that  they  ought  to 
be  as  welcome  to  all  who  believe  in  Jesus  Christ,  and  in 
the  revelation  He  has  made,  as  to  Catholics.  We  need 
scarce  add  the  hope  that  they  may  have  a  large  circula- 
tion; and  we  ask  all,  who  glory  in  the  triumph  of  Chris- 
tian truth,  to  aid  in  spreading  this  pamphlet. 

Patrick  Cronin. 

Office  OF  THE  Catholic  Union  and  Times,  ) 
Buffalo,  N.  Y.,  January  5th,  1883.       ) 


NOTES  ON  INGERSOLL 


INTRODUCTORY. 

THE  North  American  Review  for  August,  1881,  pub- 
lished an  article  on  the  Christian  Religion,  by  Robert 
G.  Ingersoll,  together  with  a  reply  to  it  by  Jeremiah  S. 
Black  of  Washington  city.  In  the  November  number  of 
the  same  Rem'eiv,  Mr.  Ingersoll  replied  to  Black's  defence, 
and  there  the  controversy  came  to  an  abrupt  end. 

This  sudden  termination  of  the  debate  caused  no  little 
surprise.  Mr.  Ingersoll's  admirers  rejoiced  at  what  they 
considered  Black's  defeat,  and  those  Christians  who  took 
an  interest  in  this  passage-at-arms  between  the  two  law- 
yers were  disappointed  at  Mr.  Black's  silence.  They  be- 
gan to  think  that  he  had  entered  into  a  field  of  action  for 
which  he  was  not  well  equipped  by  education  and  men- 
tal structure.  They  were  not,  however,  left  long  in  doubt 
as  to  the  reason  of  his  silence.  This  reason  he  gives,  in 
a  letter  addressed  to  the  American  Christian  Review^  a 
weekly  religious  paper  published  in   Cincinnati. 

"From  the  beginning,"  says  Mr.  Black,  "it  was  dis- 
tinctly understood  that  my  defence  was  to  be  published 
with  the  accusation.  *  *  *  At  the  time  of  the  publica- 
tion I  agreed  that  if  Mr.  Ingersoll  had  any  fault  to  find 


J  2  NOTES    ON    INGERSOLL. 

with  the  result,  it  might  seem  cowardly  to  refuse  him  an- 
other chance  on  the  same  terms.  I  was  not  afraid  of  any 
new  assault  he  might  make,  if  he  was  not  afraid  of  my 
defence. 

'^  Three  months  afterwards  fifty  pages  of  the  foulest 
and  falsest  libel  that  ever  was  written  against  God  or  man, 
was  sent  to  me.  I  was  entirely  willing  to  treat  it  as  I  had 
treated  the  other;  that  is,  give  it  the  answer  I  thought  it 
deserved,  and  let  both  go  together.  But  it  came  when  I 
was  disabled  by  an  injury  from  which  I  could  not  hope 
to  get  well  for  some  weeks,  and  I  so  notified  the  editor. 
To  my  surprise  I  was  informed  that  no  contradiction, 
correction,  or  criticism  of  mine,  or  anybody  else,  would  be 
allowed  to  accompany  this  new  effusion  of  filth.  It  was 
to  be  printed  immediately  and  would  occupy  so  much 
space  that  none  could  be  spared  for  the  other  side.  I  pro- 
posed that  if  its  bulk  could  not  be  reduced  so  as  to  ad- 
mit of  an  answer  in  the  same  number,  it  should  be  post- 
poned until  a  reply  could  be  made  ready  for  publication 
in  the  next  succeeding  number.  This  and  divers  other 
offers  were  rejected,  for  the  express  reason  that  "Mr. 
IngersoU  would  not  consent."  Finding  the  Review  con- 
trolled by  him  to  suit  himself,  I  do  not  think  I  was  bound 
to  go  further." 

This  explanation  puts  the  affair  in  a  light  which  re- 
flects little  credit  on  Mr.  IngersoU  and  the  North  Amer- 
ican Revie^if.  If  Mr.  IngersoU  had  perfect  confidence  in 
the  strength  of  his  position  there  is  no  conceivable  rea- 
son why  he  should  consent  to  take  this  snap  judgment 
on  the  counsel  for  the  defence.  If  his  purpose  had  been 
tolstop^the  controversy,  on  finding  himself  in  an  intei- 


INTRODUCTORY.  t^ 

lectual  combat  with  a  strong  man,  he  could  not  have  de- 
vised a  better  method.  Mr.  Black  was  certainly  not 
bound  to  go  further  and  trust  himself  or  his  case  to  a 
Revieiv  that  had  outraged  his  rights,  or  to  a  man  who  had 
taken  advantage  of  an  accident  which  had  temporarily 
disabled  his  antagonist. 

Mr.  Ingersoll,  in  his  reply,  indignantly  accuses  Judge 
Black  of  personal  detraction,  and  says,  very  justly,  that 
"The  theme  (the  Christian  Religion)  is  great  enough  to 
engage  the  highest  faculties  of  the  human  mind,  and,  in 
the  investigation  of  such  a  subject,  vituperation  is  singu- 
larly and  vulgarly  out  of  place." 

Nothing  can  be  truer  than  this,  but  is  it  not  a  new  de- 
parture for  Mr.  Ingersoll?  Vituperation  of  an  individual, 
or  of  a  class,  of  the  living  or  of  the  dead,  is  unrelieved 
vulgarity,  and  singularly  out  of  place  when  treating  of  a 
subject  that  demands  the  exercise  of  the  highest  facul- 
ties of  the  intellect,  and  which  involves  the  destiny  of 
man.  Man's  life  is  a  tragedy,  his  first  utterance  is  a  cry 
of  pain,  his  last,  the  groan  of  death.  It  is  indeed  no  sub- 
ject to  make  merry  over.  Be  man's  future  what  it  may, 
it  is  an  awful  subject,  from  whatever  point  of  view  we 
may  consider  it.  It  has  occupied  the  attention  of  the 
greatest  intellects  that  ever  lit  on  this  earth,  and  it 
arouses  anxiety  in  every  heart,  from  the  palace  of  the 
king  to  the  cottage  of  the  peasant. 

But  does  not  Mr.  IngersoU's  protest  against  Mr.  Black 
sound  strangely,  coming,  as  it  does,  from  one  who,  foryears 
past,  has  been  making  the  Christian  Religion,  its  doctrines, 
institutions,  and  sacred  personages,  the  butt  of  his  vitu- 
peration and   ridicule?     Judaism  and  Christianity  have 


14  NOTES   ON    INGERSOLL. 

been  burlesqued  by  him  on  the  stage  of  the  lecture-hall. 
The  ministers  of  the  Old  and  the  New  Covenant  have 
been  exhibited  as  cunning  and  unprincipled  tricksters, 
vicious  knaves  and  tyrants.  Everything  held  sacred  by 
every  Christian  heart  has  been  made  the  subject  of  his 
gibes,  and  of  laughter  for  his  audiences.  And  all  this 
time,  while  he  has  b^^en  combining  the  professions  of  the 
philosopher,  the  humorist  and  the  ghoul,  he  has  talked 
sweetly  of  delicacy,  refinement,  sentiment,  feeling,  honor 
bright,  etc.  All  this  time  he  has  delighted  in  tearing  and 
wounding  and  lacerating  the  hearts  and  faith  and  feel- 
ings of  those  by  whose  tolerance  he  is  permitted  to  out- 
rage the  common  sense  and  sentiment  of  Christendom. 
Truly,  a  protest  against  vulgarity  and  vituperation,  coming 
from  such  a  source,  is  a  surprise— a  case  of  Iucks  a  7ion 
hicendo. 

What  is  the  cause  of  this  sudden  change? 

The  orator  of  "  laughter  and  applause"  is  unexpectedly 
confronted  by  a  lawyer  like  himself,  who  deals  with 
him  unceremoniously,  but  who  yet  treats  him  with  more 
consideration  and  decency  than  he  treats  the  great 
Hebrew  lawgiver,  Moses,  and  what  is  the  result?  He 
stops  his  clatter,  and  pauses  in  his  ribaldry,  to  give  his 
opponent  a  lecture  on  delicacy,  propriety  and  politeness! 
If  Black  has  had  the  bad  taste  to  make  use  of  Inger- 
soll's  methods,  IngersolJ  should  be  the  last  person  to 
complain. 

You  may  outrage  Christian  sentiment,  you  may  laugh 
at  and  burlesque  Moses  and  Christ,  but  you  must  be 
genteel  and  polite  and  ''nice"  when  you  speak  of  Mr. 
IngersoU.  Judge  Black  forgot  this,  and  hence  the  in- 
dignant protest. 


INTRODUCTORY.  15 

"The  theme,"  says  Mr.  Ingersoll,  "  is  great  enough  to 
engage  the  highest  faculties  of  the  human  mind." 

It  may  be  well  asked:  What  faculties  of  his  mind  has 
he  thus  far  employed  on  this  great  theme?  Has  it  been 
the  faculty  of  reason,  or  the  faculty  of  ridicule? 

Our  great  American  wits  have  been  content  to  allow 
their  peculiar  faculties  to  play  on  those  subjects  proper 
for  the  exercise  of  them,  and,  in  doing  this,  they  afford 
us  amusement  and  lighten  the  burdens  of  life.  The  best 
of  them  have  carefully  observed  the  proprieties,  and  never 
passed  the  boundary  line  that  separates  the  sacred  from 
the  profane.  Mr.  Ingersoll  found  the  legitimate  field  of 
wit  and  drollery  pre-occupied  by  Artemus  Ward,  Mark 
Twain,  and  others  with  whom  he  could  not  compete.  He 
sought  new  fields,  and,  with  indecent  audacity,  selects  that 
which  the  civilized  world  has  always  held  as  sacred — 
Religion.  In  this  new  line  (new  at  least  for  an  American 
humorist)  he  is  not  content  with  trying  to  be  a  wii;  he 
pretends  to  be  a  philosopher,  a  moralist,  a  theologian 
learned  in  the  scriptures,  a  hermeneutist,  and  a  historian. 
If  his  claims  to  all  these  qualifications  can  be  made  good, 
he  is  certainly  well  equipped  for  business.  But  he  lacks 
the  intense  earnestness  and  masculine  vigor  of  Tom 
Paine,  the  learning  and  wit  of  Voltaire,  the  philosophical 
penetration  of  Hobbes  and  Bolingbroke,  the  analytical 
faculty  of  Herbert  Spencer,  the  industry  of  Tyndall  and 
Huxley,  and  the  comprehensiveness  and  incisive  logic  of 
John  Stewart  Mill.  All  these  are  masters  in  their  way, 
whom  Mr.  Ingersoll  has  not  succeeded  in  imitating  or 
understanding.  Wanting  in  originalty,  he  draws  liberally 
from    the  writings   of   Paine,  Voltaire,  Bolingbroke    and 


l6  NOTES   ON    INGERSOLL. 

Others  for  his  points  and  arguments.  He  has  not  suc- 
ceeded in  advancing  anything  new  against  Christianity. 
Perhaps  it  is  doing  him  injustice  to  expect  it  of  him. 
Infidels,  from  the  time  of  Celsus,  Porphyry  and  Julian, 
have  exhausted,  in  vain,  the  resources  of  human  invention 
to  discover  implements  to  undermine  the  sublime  fabric 
of  Christianity.  We  must,  therefore,  not  expect  anything 
new  from  a  modern  infidel  or  atheist.  All  we  can  reason- 
ably look  for,  is  a  revamping  of  the  old  and  often-refuted 
sophistries  of  the  past.  By  means  of  a  ready  tongue  and 
a  grotesque  imagination,  Mr.  IngersoU  succeeds  in  gal- 
vanizing these  sapless  corpses  into  a  momentary  appear- 
ance of  life,  but  they  will  sink,  as  they  sank  before,  into 
oblivion,  as  the  Christian  world  moves  on. 

If  Mr.  Black  has  been  guilty  of  personal  detraction,  as  Mr. 
IngersoU  insinuates,  he  has  done  wrong;  but  in  attack- 
ing a  live  man,  like  Mr.  IngersoU,  he  has  shown  more  cour- 
age and  manliness  than  the  latter  has  exhibited  in  his 
detractions  of  Moses,  dead.  The  living  can  retort;  the 
dead,  can  only  listen  and  be  silent.  He  who  attacks  the 
dead  need  not  look  for  an  answer  in  the  next  Rmiew.  If 
Black  had  outraged  the  character  and  misrepresented  the 
words  of  IngersoU,  as  the  latter  has  outraged  the  character 
and  misrepresented  the  words  of  Moses,  he  would  have 
disgraced  the  cause  he  defended,  and  no  condemnation 
would  be  severe  enough  for  the  unchristian  offence. 
Black  attacked  a  living  foe,  with  shield  and  spear  in  rest; 
that  was  at  least  brave.  IngersoU  strikes  at  the  great  and 
honored  dead,  the  leader  and  lawgiver  of  the  most  re- 
markable nation  that  ever  rose  and  flourished  and  feU. 
The  jackal  can  gnaw,  in  safety,  the  tongue  of  the  dead 


INTRODUCTORY. 


17 


lion,  and  the  field-mouse  play  its  antics  in  his  footsteps 
on  the  plain. 

The  character  and  moral  code  of  Moses  are  as  imper- 
vious to  his  attacks  as  are  the  pyramids  of  Egypt,  to  the 
javelin  of  the  wandering  Arab,  who  strikes  their  base  as 
he  passes  and  disappears,  while  they  remain  the  objects 
of  wonder  to  future  generations. 

The  proper  way  to  meet  Mr.  Ingersoll  is,  not  to  defend 
Christianity  against  his  scattering,  inconsequent,  illogical 
and  unphilosophical  attacks,  but  to  make  his  article  the 
subject  to  be  considered;  to  analyze,  with  careful  scrutiny, 
every  statement  he  makes,  every  argument  he  adduces, 
every  inference  he  draws;  to  grant  nothing,  and  take 
nothing  for  granted. 

The  Christian  is  not  bound,  at  the  call  of  Mr.  Inger- 
soll or  any  one  else,  to  reprint  the  proofs  of  Christianity 
that  are  to  be  found  in  the  writings  of  the  great  Chris- 
tian philosophers  and  theologians.  These  proofs  are  on 
record,  and  Mr.  Ingersoll's  ancestors  in  atheism  and  un- 
belief, from  Anaximander,  Epicurus,  and  Lucretius,  down 
to  d'Holdach,  Laland,  Cabanis,  Hobbes,  and  Paine,  have 
never  answered  them. 

It  will  be  time  to  think  of  new  defences  when  the  old 
have  been  captured.  Mr.  Ingersoll's  ignorance  of  those 
arguments  is  not  sufficient  reason  why  they  should  be  re- 
peated. I  do  not  propose  to  repeat  them,  as  it  is  not 
Christianity  that  is  on  trial,  but  Mr.  Ingersoll's  article. 
It  is  to  be  examined  with  analytical  care,  and  then  left 
to  the  reader  to  determine  what  it  is  worth. 

It  has  been  well  said  by  some  keen  observer,  that, 
whatever  else  a  man   writes,  he  always  writes  himself. 


1 8  NOTES   ON    INGERSOLL. 

This  is  conspicuously  true  of  Mr.  Ingersoll.  His  writ- 
ings are  a  mere  evolution  of  himself  on  paper.  The 
glitter,  sophistry,  the  bad  faith,  verbal  leger-de-main,  the 
pervading  egotism,  the  assumed  infallibility,  and  the 
brazen  audacity  of  statement,  so  conspicuous  in  his  writ- 
ings, are  the  full  bloom  and  blossom  of  his  character. 

In  these  notes  I  shall  follow  him  through  his  tortuous 
windings  as  closely  as  possible.  And,  that  I  may  not  mis- 
represent him,  or  fall,  even  unintentionally,  into  unfair- 
ness, I  intend  that  Mr.  Ingersoll  shall  always  speak  for 
himself  in  his  own  very  words.  From  this  out,  then,  it 
will  be  a  dialogue  between  him  and  his  commentator. 


CHAPTER    I. 

MR.    INGERSOLL's  "  IDEA,"  AND  WHAT  COMES  OF  IT. 

INGERSOLL — ''  The  universe,  according  to  my  idea, 
is,  always  was,  and  forever  will  be.  *  *  It  is  the  one 
eternal  being — the  only  thing  that  ever  did,  does,  or  can 
exist." 

Comment — When  you  say ''according  to  my  idea,"  you 
leave  the  inference  that  this  theory  of  an  eternal  uni- 
verse never  occurred  to  the  mind  of  man  until  your  brain 
acquired  its  full  development.  Of  course  you  did  not 
intend  to  mislead  or  deceive;  you  simply  meant  that  your 
'*  idea"  of  the  universe  is,  like  most  of  our  modern  plays, 
adapted  from  the  French,  or  elsewhere.  Your  philos- 
ophy, like  those  plays,  wants  the  freshness  and  flavor  of 
originality,  and  suffers  from  bad  translation.  The  old 
originals,  from  whom  you  copy,  thought  it  incum- 
bent on  them  to  give  a  reason,  or,  at  least,  a  show  of  rea- 
son, "for  their  idea."  In  this  enlightened  age  you  do  not 
deem  this  necessary.  It  is  sufficient  for  you  to  formulate 
your  "idea".  To  attempt  to  prove  it  would  be  beneath 
you.  Is  this  the  reason  why  you  do  not  advance  one 
single  argument  to  prove  the  eternity  of  matter?  Have, 
you  got  so  far  as  to  believe  that  your  "idea"  has  the  force 
of  an  argument,  or  that  the  science  of  philosophy  must 
be  re-adjusted  because  you  happen  to  have  an  "idea"? 

When  you  say:  The  universe  is  the  one  eternal  being, 

19 


20  '  NOTES    ON    INGERSOLL. 

you,  of  course,  mean  this  visible,  material,  ever-changing 
universe  of  matter.  Inasmuch  as  you  have  given  your 
"  idea"  without  any  reason  or  argument  to  support  it,  it 
would  be  a  work  of  supererogation  lo  attempt  to  refute 
it.  It  is  sufficient  to  oppose  my  idea  to  yours.  But  I 
will  go  further  and  see  if  your  idea  of  eternal  matter  does 
not  involve  a  contradiction.  Of  course  you  know  that  a 
statement  or  proposition,  that  involves  a  contradiction, 
cannot  be  true.  You  affirm  the  eternity  of  matter.  On 
this  I  reason  thus: 

That  which  is  eternal  is  infinite.  It  must  be  infinite, 
because,  if  eternal,  it  can  have  nothing  to  limit  it. 

But  that  which  is  infinite  must  be  infinite  in  every  way. 
If  limited   in  any  way,  it  would  not  be  infinite. 

Now,  matter  is  limited.  It  is  composed  of  parts,  and 
composition  is  limitation.  It  is  subject  to  change,  and 
change  involves  limitation.  Change  supposes  succession, 
and  there  can  be  no  succession  without  a  beginning,  and, 
therefore,  limitation.  Thus  far  we  are  borne  out  by 
reason,  experience,  and  common  sense. 
Then- 
Matter  is  limited,  and,  therefore,  finite;  and  if  finite  in 
anything,  finite  in  everything;  and  if  finite  in  everything, 
therefore  finite  in  time,  and,  therefore,  not  eternal. 

The  idea  of  an  eternal,  self-existent  being,  is  incompat- 
ible, in  every  point  of  view,  with  our  idea  of  matter.  The 
former  is  essentially  simple,  unchangeable,  impassible,  and 
one.  The  latter  is  composite,  changeable,  passible,  and 
multiple.  To  assert  that  matter  is  eternal,  is  to  assert  that 
all  these  antagonistic  attributes  are  identical — a  privilege 
granted,  by  sane  men,  to  lunatics  only. 


MR.  INGERSOLL'S  idea  AND  WHAT  COMES  OF  IT.       21 

Ingersoll—"  The  universe,  according  to  my  idea,  is, 
always  was,  and  forever  will  be." 

Comment— We  have  seen  that  this  "  idea"  involves  a 
dontradiction  as  absurd  as  to  say  that  parallel  lines  can 
meet,  or  that  a  thing  can  be,  and  not  be,  at  the  sam  time. 
But  other,  important  consequences  follow  from  your 
"  idea." 

If  this  universe  of  matter  alone  exists,  the  mind,  in- 
tellect or  soul  must  be  matter,  or  a  form  of  matter.  Sub- 
limate or  attenuate  matter  to  an  indefinite  extent,  it  yet 
remains  matter.  Now,  if  the  mind  is  matter,  it  must  obey 
the  forces  that  govern  and  regulate  the  action  of  matter. 

The  forces  that  govern  matter  are  invariable.  From 
this  it  follows  that  every  thought  of  the  philosopher, 
every  calculation  of  the  mathematician,  every  imagination 
and  fancy  of  the  poet,  are  mere  results  of  material  force, 
entirely  independent  of  the  individuals  conceiving  them! 

The  sublime  conceptions  and  creations  of  Shakespeare 
and  Milton,  the  wonderful  discoveries  of  Newton,  Arago, 
and  Young,  the  creations  of  Raphael  and  .Angelo,  are 
nothing  more  than  the  flowering  and  blooming  of  carnal 
vegetation.  Are  all  the  externs  of  lunatic  asylums  pre- 
pared to  accept  this  philosophy? 

But  let  us  go  a  little  further:  You  are.  proud  of  your 
philosophy  and  your  wisdom.  But  why  should  you  be 
so  if  your  ideas  are  the  mere  results  of  the  forces  that 
govern  matter.  And  why  should  you  try  to  convert  the 
world  to  your  way  of  thinking  if  the  world  must  be  gov- 
erned by  the  unalterable  laws  of  matter?  I  believe  in 
the  Holy  Scriptures.  Is  that  the  result  of  material  forces? 
If  so,  why  try  to  persuade  me  to  the  contrary?     If  your 


22  NOTES    ON    INGERSOLL. 

maierialistic  theory  is  true,  how  can  1  help  being  a  Chris- 
tian? If  I  am  the  victim  of  unalterable  forces  or  laws, 
why  try  to  convince  or  persuade  me?  Do  these  material 
forces  compel  you  to  try  to  persuade  me  to  assent  to  your 
notions,  and,  at  the  same  time,  compel  me  to  reject  them? 
Why  condemn  kings  as  tyrants,  and  priests  as  hypocrites, 
if  they  are  the  helpless  victims  of  the  unalterable  forces 
of  matter? 

You  are  an  apostle  of  liberty.  If  there  is  anything  of 
value  in  this  world  it  is  liberty.  You  thrum  this  tune 
till  your  readers  get  tired  of  it  Now,  if  there  is  nothing 
but  matter,  and  if  matter  is  governed  by  invariable  laws, 
there  can  be  no  liberty  whatever.  Materialism  destroys 
human  liberty  and  free  agency,  leaving  man  the  victim 
of  physical  forces.  You  who  prize  liberty  so  highly  should 
repudiate  a  theory  that  destroys  it.  If  man  is  not  free, 
and  he  cannot  be,  according  to  your  materialistic  doc- 
trine, you  are  inconsistent  when  you  appeal  to  his  intelli- 
gence. You  are  equally  inconsistent  if  you  expect  your 
reasonings  to  convince  him,  since  his  conviction  must 
depend  on  material  forces  independent  of  him  and  you. 
If  you  understand  your  principles,  you  are  bound,  by  the 
force  of  logic,  to  be  silent  and  wait  in  patience  the  out- 
come of  those  forces  which  are  unalterable,  irresistible, 
and  unavoidable.  If  m^n's  thoughts  are  the  result  of 
mere  physical  forces  it  is  insanity  to  reason  with  them. 
As  well  might  you  reason  with  a  clock  for  running 
too  fast,  with  fire  for  burning,  or  with  a  tree  for  growing. 


CHAPTER  II. 

5.OMETHING    ABOUT     THE     LAWS    OF     NATURE,    AND     HOW 

MR.  INGERSOLL  "gATHERS"    AN    IDEA HIS    IDEA     OF 

HYDRAULICS. 

INGERSOLL — '*  We  know  nothing  of  what  we  call 
the  laws  of  nature,  except  as  we  gather  the  idea  of 
law  from  the  uniformity  of  phenomena  springing  from 
like  conditions.  To  make  myself  clear:  Water  always 
runs  down-hill." 

Comment — We  acquire  a  knowledge  of  the  laws  of  na- 
ture by  observing  the  effects  of  the  forces  of  nature;  but 
we  do  not  gather  "an  idea  of  law"  from  the  study  of 
these  forces  and  their  effects.  The  idt-a  of  law,  in  gen- 
eral, is,  and  must  be,  prior  to  the  idea  of  particular  laws. 

We  cannot  assert  a  law  in  a  given  case  without  having 
an  idea  of  law  in  general.  We  say  a  particular  law  is 
a  law  because  it  corresponds  with  the  norm  of  law  which 
exists  intuitively  in  the  mind.  The  idea  of  law,  then,  does 
not  come  from  observing  phenomena.  These  phenomena 
enable  us  to  acquire  a  knowledge  of  particular  laws,  but 
not  of  law.  The  laws  of  nature,  in  the  last  analysis,  are 
that  intimate  and  invariable  connection  which  exists  be- 
tween natural  causes  and  effects.  This  idea  of  cause  and 
effect,  or  the  principle  of  causality,  as  it  is  called,  is  the 

23 


24  NOTES    ON    INGERSOLL. 


basis  on  which  we  make  our  deductions  from  phenomena. 
A  stone,  thrown  up,  falls  to  the  ground.  The  mind,  re- 
ferring to  its  own  intuition  of  causality,  asks :  What 
caused  it  to  rail  ?  The  experiment  is  repeated  with  a  like 
result.  The  mind  here  does  not  "gather  an  idea  of  law" 
but  begins  instinctively  to  seek  the  law  in  the  case.  To 
seek  for  a  law  presupposes  the  idea  of  law,  for  we  do  not 
seek  for  that  of  which  we  have  no  idea. 

To  talk  about  "  gathering  an  idea  of  law  from  phe- 
nomena' is  unphilosophical.  We  conclude  or  deduce 
laws  from  phenomena,  but  we  cannot  ''gather  an  idea  of 
law  '  from  anything.  To  gather  an  idea  is  like  gathering 
a  huckleberry,  ©r  an  Ingersoll.  It  is  not  customary  to 
gather  a  unit  You  confound  idea  with  judgment  or  de- 
duction. 

The  illustration  you  give,  t®  make  j^ourself  clear,  is  un- 
fortunate.    You  say: 

Ingersoll — "  To  make  myself  clear:  Water  always 
runs  down-hill." 

Comment — How,  then,  did  it  get  up  hill  ?  Or  is  there 
a  perennial  spring  up  there  ?  Water  does  not  always  run 
down  hill.  To  run  down  hill  is  an  exception  to  the  gen- 
eral *iiode  of  the  action  of  water.  In  the  present  condi- 
tion of  the  physical  world,  the  tendency  of  water  is  up- 
ward and  outward.  This  will  be  admitted  of  water  in  the 
form  ot  steam  or  vapor.  The  water  that  falls  as  rain 
has  been  first  taken  up  by  the  sun's  heat.  Water  runs  up 
in  the  capillary  tubes  of  every  vegetable  that  grows. 
More  water  ascends  in  the  capillaries  of  the  vegetable 
world  in  one  day  than  falls  over  Niagara  in  a  year.  Water 
runs  up  in  all  rivers  that  run  toward  the  equator.     The 


MR.   INGERSOLL  S  IDEA  AND  WHAT  COMES  OF  IT.       25 

Mississippi  river  carries  its  waters  up  an  inclined  plane,  a 
perpendicular  distance  of  about  four  miles.     The  same 
is  true  of  a  portion  of  the  Nile.     This  earth  on  which  we 
live  and  play   the  wise  and  the   foolish,  is  not  a  sphere, 
but  a  spheroid.     It  is  flattened  at  the  poles.     The  lowest 
places  on  the  earth  are  the  regions  about  the  North  and 
South  poles.     The  equator,  all  around  the  earth,  is  a  inoun- 
tain  thirteen  miles  higher   than  the   surface  at  the  poles. 
The  polar  regions  are  vast  sunken  valleys.     Now  I  ask: 
If  "water  always  runs  down-hill,"  why  do  not  the  waters 
of  all  the  vast  oceans  flood  with  impetuosity  toward  the 
poles?     Why  do  not  those  waters  seek   their  level  equi- 
d»*=*"nt  from  the  centre  and  make  the  earth   a  perfect 
sphere?     Two-thirds  of  the   earth's    surface   consists  of 
water.     These  multitudinous   waters   do  not  run  down- 
hills—do  not  how  down  towards  the  valleys  of  the  poles. 
On  the  contrary,  they  remain  on  a  vast  slope,  that   rises 
toward   the  equator,  a  perpendicular  height  of  thirteen 
miles.     They  remain  there  on  that  inclined  plane — on  that 
hill-side  forever.     You  may  say  this  is  caused  by  the  ro- 
tation of  the  earth.     I  do  not  care  what  causes  it.     The 
fact  of  it  disproves  your  statement  that  water  always  runs 
down-hill     What  you  wanted  to  say  was  this:  Water,  like 
matter  in  all  its  other  forms,  yields  to  the  stronger  force. 
In  the  present  case  the  centrifugal  force  is  the  stronger, 
and  hence  the  waters  of  the  earth   tend   up-hill  towards 
the  equator. 

You  saw,  somewhere,  a  bit  of  water  running  down  a 
hill,  and  you  ''gathered  the  idea'*  that  it  always  does  so. 
Your  view  was  too  narrow  and  local.  It  wanted  breadth 
and  comprehensiveness.     You  misinterpreted  nature  as 

A 


26  .  NOTES   OIJ    mOERSOLL. 

you  misunderstood  and  misinterpreted  Moses  and  revealed 
religion.  You  have  proved  yourself  an  incompetent  in- 
terpreter of  nature,  and  you  cannot  be  relied  on  when 
you  presume  to  interpret,  criticise,  condemn,  or  deny  that 
which  is  above  nature. 

Ingersoll — "  The  theist  says  this  (water  runs  down 
hill)  happens  because  there  is  behind  the  phenomenon  an 
active  law." 

Comment — We  have  seen  that  you  misunderstand 
nature,  and  from  what  you  now  say  it  is  evident  that  you 
do  not  understand  what  the  theist  means.  The  theist 
does  not  say  there  is  behind  the  phenomenon  an  active 
law.  He  repudiates  the  stupidities  you  attribute  to  him. 
V/hat  the  theist  does  say  is  this:  Behind,  prior  to,  and 
concomitant  with  the  phenomenon,  there  is  a  static  or 
permanent  force  which  is  manifested  when  the  proper 
conditions  are  placed.  A  stone,  thrown  up,  falls.  The 
power  or  force  that  brought  it  down  was  there  before  it 
was  thrown  up,  and  continues,  afier  it  has  fallen,  to  keep 
it  down.  The  relation  between  the  stone  and  the  force 
is  constant  and  permanent.  This  force  asserts  itself 
permanently,  but  is  manifested  to  us  only  under  certain 
conditions.  This  force,  sometimes  improperly  called  a 
law,  is  what  we  understand  by  gravitation.  It  was  pro- 
jected into  nature;  when  God  created  nature. 

Ingersoll — "  As  a  matter  of  fact,  law  is  this  side  of 
the  phenomenon." 

Comment — That  depends  on  what  you  mean  by  law. 
If  by  the  word  you  mean  that  force  which  actuates  the 
phenomenon,  your  statement  is  not  correct,  and  your 
play  on  the  word  "  law"  is  beneath  the  dignity  of  a 
philosopher. 


MR.   INGERSOLL'S  IDEA  AND  WHAT  COMES  OF  IT.       27 

Ingersoll — "  Law  does  not  cause  the  phenomenon, 
but  the  phenomenon  causes  the  idea  of  law  in  our  minds." 

Comment — If,  by  law,  you  mean  the  force  I  have  spoken 
of,  it  does  cause  the  phenomenon.  If  you  mean,  by  law, 
a  mere  verbal  formula,  or  statement  of  wliat  a  given  force 
will  do,  under  given  circumstances,  you  are  trifling  with 
the  intelligence  of  your  readers.  Phenomena  may  enable 
us  to  acquire  the  knowledge  of  a  law,  but,  as  we  have 
already  seen,  they  cannot  cause  or  originate  the  idea  of 
law  in  our  minds.  You  confound  the  idea  of  law  with 
the  knowledge  of  laws.  A  philosopher  should  not  write 
with  looseness  of  expression  and  indeterminateness  of 
thought.  Law,  in  our  language,  has  more  than  one 
meaning.  When  speaking  of  nature,  \l  may  mean  the 
action  of. natural  forces,  or  it  may  mean  a  verbal  formula 
or  statement  of  what  that  action  is  or  will  be  in  given 
circumstances.  Your  purpose  required  that  these  two 
meanings  should  be  confounded,  and  you,  accordingly, 
confounded  them. 

Phenomena  do  not  cause  the  idea  of  law.  The  mental 
faculty  of  associating  like  events  and  referring  them  to  a 
common  cause,  together  with  the  faculty  of  generaliza- 
tion, enables  us  to  formulate  laws.  A  series  of  like 
phenomena  may  suggest  a  law  to  the  mind  already  pos- 
sessed of  the  idea  of  law,  but  it  does  not  and  cannot,  in 
the  nature  of  things,  ''cause  the  idea  of  law."  The  idea 
of  law  must  precede  the  knowledge  of  a  law. 

Ingersoll — "  This  idea  (of  law)  is  produced  from 
(by?)  the  fact  that,  under  like  circumstances,  the  same  (a 
like?)  phenomenon  always  happens." 

Comment — A  series  of  like  phenomena  suggests  the 


28  NOTES    ON    INGERSOLL. 

existence  of  force,  not  the  idea  of  law;  and  when  like  phe- 
nomena always  happen  under  like  circumstances,  we  are 
led  to  conclude  that  it  is  the  saine  force  that  is  acting  in 
each  case.  Further  observation  of  this  force's  manifesta- 
tion— and  all  phenomena  are  the  manifestation  of  force 
— enables  us  to  distinguish  it  from  other  forces,  to  iden- 
tify it  by  its  invariable  act,  and  to  associate  it  with  its 
effects.  Having  arrived  at  this  degree  of  familiarity  with 
a  force  and  its  act,  we  formulate  in  words  what  it  will  do 
under  given  circumstances.  These  formulas  are  called 
laws  of  nature.  In  this  sense  these  laws  are  purely  sub- 
jective, that  is  to  say,  they  exist  only  in  the  mind  appre- 
hending them,  and  not  in  nature.  Tliere  is  an  inherent 
principle  in  the  forces  of  nature  which  causes  them  to  act 
in  the  same  manner  under  the  same  circumstances. 
This,  however,  is  not  a  law,  but  the  nature  of  the  forces 
themselves.  The  laws  of  nature,  then,  as  commonly  un- 
derstood, are  the  uniform  action  of  natural  forces  ex- 
pressed in  words.  When  physicists  speak  of  the  laws  of 
nature,  they  refer  to  the  forces  of  which  the  laws  are  but 
the  verbal  expression.  They  suppose  philosophers  have 
sufficient  intelligence  to  understand  this  fact;  and  yet  it 
appears  that  they  are  sometimes  mistaken.  In  all  you 
say  on  this  subject  you  confound  law  \\\\\\  force;  whether 
this  is  done  intentionally,  or  through  ignorance,  I  need  not 
stop  to  consider. 

Ingersoll — "  Mr.  Black  probably  thinks  that  the  dif- 
ference in  the  weight  of  rocks  and  clouds  was  created 
by  law." 

Comment — God  indirectly  created  natural  effects  when 
he  created  the  natural  forces  which  cause  them.     When 


MR.  INGERSOLL's  IlJEA  AND  WHAT  COMES  OF  IT.      39 

God  created  the  forces  of  nature  he,  by  his  will,  gave 
them  their  modes  of  action — or  laid  down  laws  for  them. 
Hence  the  difference  in  the  weight  of  rocks  and  clouds 
arises  from  the  action  of  those  forces  to  which  God  gave 
modes  or  laws  of  action,  and  hence,  again,  this  difference 
in  weight  is  truly  caused  by  the  law,  or  will  of  God.  So 
what  you  imagined  to  be  a  patent  absurdity  is  an  un- 
deniable truth.  If  God  had  not  given  to  the  force,  called 
gravitation,  its  known  mode  of  action  there  would  and 
could  be  no  difference  in  the  weight. of  rocks  and  clouds 
— for  weight  is  nothing  more  than  the  measure  of  gravi- 
tation's force.  Eliminate  this  force  from  your  rocks  and 
clouds  and  their  weight  would  be  7iil;  and  as  they  would 
have  no  weight  they  would,  of  course,  have  no  difference 
in  weight.  But  to  return:  the  difference  between  the 
weight  of  rocks  and  clouds  arises  from  the  fact  that,  al- 
though the  same  force  acts  on  both  of  them  at  the  same 
time  and  in  the  same  manner,  it  does  so  under  different, 
and  not  like,  circumstances.  Density  is  a  circumstance 
in  the  case,  and  that  of  the  rock  is  greater  than  that  of 
the  cloud.  Thus,  while  the  same  force  is  acting  on  both, 
an(^  -.1  the  same  manner,  it  does  so  under  different  cir- 
cumstances, and  hence  the  difference  in  weight.  This 
difference  is  to  be  traced  back  to  the  will  oi  God  when 
he  gave  modes  of  action  to  nature's  forces. 

Ingersoll— "  Mr.  Black  probably  thinks  that  parallel 
lines  fail  to  unite  only  because  it  is  illegal.'* 

Comment — Mr.  Black  "  probably  thinks"  that,  when 
you  trifle  in  this  way,  you  are  not  exercising  the  higher 
faculties  of  your  mind  to  any  great  extent.  You  speak 
much  of  **  candor"  and  **  honor  bright."     Do  you  intend 


30  NOTES   ON    INGERSOLL. 

what  you  have  said  here  as  an  illustration  of  those 
virtues  ? 

Ingersoll — "  It  seems  to  me  that  law  cannot  be  the 
cause  of  phenomena,  but  is  an  effect  produced  in  our 
minds  by  their  succession  and  resemblance." 

Comment — It  would  seem  that  it  seems  so  to  you, 
since  you  have  repeated  that  idea  three  times  in  half  a 
page  of  your  article.  But  granting  that  it  seems  so  to 
you;  are  you  so  simple  as  to  advance  that  as  an  argu- 
ment! Your  quibbles  on  the  word  "  law"  have  been  al- 
ready exposed.  Force  is  the  cause  of  phenomena.  The 
law  is  tlie  mere  statement  of  what  the  force  will  do  in  a 
given  case. 


CHAPTER  III. 

A  TOUCH  OF  metaphysics;  with  a  tail-piece  about 
"honest  thought." 

INGERSOLL— "  To  put  a  God  back  of  the  universe, 
compels  us  to  admit  that  there  was  a  time  when  noth- 
ing existed  except  this  God." 

Comment — It  compels  us  to  admit  nothing  of  the  kind. 
The  eternal  God  can  place  an  eternal  act.  His  creative 
act  could,  therefore^  be  co-eternal  with  his  being.  The 
end  of  the  act,  that  is,  creation,  could  be  co-existent  with 
the  eternal  act,  and,  therefore,  eternal.  To  deny  this  is 
to  affirm  that  there  could  be  a  moment  when  the  eternal 
and  omnipotent  God  could  not  act,  which  is  contrary  to 
Christian  teaching.  Cliristianity  does  not  teach  that  the 
universe  was  actually  created  from  eternity,  but  reason 
teaches  that  it  could  have  been  so  created.  But,  grant- 
ing that  the  universe  is  not  an  eternal  creation,  your 
conclusion  would  not  follow.  For  in  this  hypothesis,  as 
time  began  with  creation  and  is  the  measure  of  its  en- 
durance, it  follows  that  before  creation  was,  time  was 
not.  Hence,  God  did  not  exist  in  time  before  creation. 
God  IS.  To  him  there  is  neither  past,  present,  nor 
future — only  eternity.  God  is  alone  before  creation 
was.  But  granting  that  God  is  alone  before  creation  was, 
what  follows? 

31 


32  NOTES    ON    INGERSOLL. 

Ingersoll — "  That  this  God  lived  from  eternity  in  infi- 
nite vacuum  and  absolute  idleness." 

Comment — If  God  lived  in  it,  it  could  not  have  been 
vacuum.  A  vacuum  is  that  in  which  nothivg  is.  In  the 
hypothesis  that  God  is,  he  is  something;  he  is  infinite, 
and  hence  an  infinite  vacuum  is  infinite  nonsense.  But 
the  word  has  a  gross,  material  sense,  and  you  used  it  for 
a  purpose. 

Ingersoll — "And  in  absolute  idleness." 

Comment — Christian  philosophy  teaches  us  that  God 
is  pure  act^  the  source  of  origin  of  all  activity  and  life. 
To  say  that  such  a  being  can,  under  any  circumstance,  be 
in  absolute  idleness,  or  non-action,  is  simply  an  expression 
of  human  ignorance. 

You  may  say  this  theory  of  Christian  philosophy  is 
erroneous.  But  that  is  nothing  to  the  purpose  until  you 
have  demonstrated  the  error  of  it,  which  is  what  you  un- 
dertook to  do.  You  attack  that  philosophy,  and  you 
must  meet  its  oppositions  as  they  are,  not  as  you  would 
make  them  appear,  and  overthrow  them  if  you  can. 

Ingersoll — "The  mind  of  every  thoughtful  man  is 
forced  to  one  of  two  conclusions:  Either  that  the  uni- 
verse is  self-existent,  or  that  it  was  created  by  a  self-ex- 
istent being.  To  my  mind  there  is  far  more  difficulty 
in  the  second  hypothesis  than  in  the  first." 

Comment — It  is  to  be  regretted  that  you  did  not  take 
the  time  and  space  to  show  the  difference  in  the  weight 
of  those  difficulties — to  show  how  the  existence  of  an 
eternal  self-existent  Creator  presents  more  difficulties  to 
the  mind  than  does  the  existence  of  eternal  matter. 
The  existence  of  an  eternal  Creator  is  not  contrary   to 


A    TOUCH    OF   METAPHYSICS.  33 

reason.  While  the  existence  of  eternal  matter,  as  we 
have  seen,  involves  the  co-existence  of  mutually  destruc- 
tive attributes  in  the  same  subject  at  the  same  time,  and 
is,  therefore,  contradictory  to  reason. 

There  have  been  many  men  of  thoughtful  minds  who 
did  not  see  that  they  were  forced  to  adopt  either  of  your 
two  conclusions.  The  pantheists  of  ancient  and  modern 
times,  of  India  and  Europe,  hold  that  the  universe  was 
neither  eternal  nor  created,  but  that  it  was  an  emanation 
from  God,  having  no  real  existence  of  its  own — a  mere 
transient  mode  of  God's  being.  These  philosophers 
were  more  radical  than  you.  They  believed  that  God 
alone  is  real,  and  that  all  else  is  phantasm.  In  believing 
that  God  is  more  immediately  cognizable  to  the  intellect 
than  the  material  upiverse  is,  they  showed  a  more  pro- 
found philosophical  sense  than  is  exhibited  by  your  school. 
The  Gnostics,  two  thousand  years  ago,  held  this  same 
doctrine  of  emanation.  The  Neo-platonists,  like  some  of 
our  German  philosophers,  denied  the  objective  reality  of 
the  universe.  Spinosa  held  that  God  alone  has  real  ex- 
istence, and  that  things  are  but  forms  of  his  extension. 
Kant  held  that  we  can  have  absolute  certainty  of  noth- 
ing; which  is  equivalent  to  a  denial  of  both  God  and  the 
universe.  Fichte  taught  that  nothing  exists  but  the  me 
— individual  consciousness — and  that  all  things  else  are 
but  the  forms  or  manifestations  of  this  me.  Schelling, 
Hegel,  and  other  philosophers  of  the  Gerpnan  pantheistic 
school,  held  the  same  as  Fichte.  The  French  eclectics, 
led  by  Cousin,  denied  the  creation,  and  held  that  the 
universe  is  a  mere  apparition  by  which  the  divine  Being 
is  exteriorly  manifested-^the  mere  ghost  of  the  Infinite. 


34  NOTES    ON    INGERSOLL. 

All  these  ^re  pantheists,  some  holding  emanatiotiy  others 
divine  evolution,  or  Das  IVerden,  as  Spinosa  called  it, 
and  others  still,  idealism.  Now,  none  of  these  are  in- 
cluded in  either  of  your  two  necessary  conclusions.  You 
will  see  that  thoughtful  men  have  pondered  long  on  this 
subject  before  you  directed  your  attention  to  it,  and  that 
they  did  not  come  to  the  conclusion  you  did.  They  wrote 
many  books  to  elucidate  what  you  dismiss  in  a  half  a 
dozen  lines.  They  erred  in  denying  the  reality  of  mat- 
ter: you  err  in  asserting  its  eternal  existence.  To  assert 
God  and  deny  matter  shows  a  higher  philosophical  cul- 
ture than  to  assert  matter  and  deny  God.  The  ontolog- 
ical  conceptions  of  the  Hindoos  and  Chinese  of  3,000 
years  ago,  were,  therefore,  profound,  and  more  in  keeping 
with  Christian  philosophy  than  are  the  ill-digested  no- 
tions of  our  modern  infidels.  The  former  grasped  the 
idea  of  necessary  being,  but  failed  to  recognize  the  real 
in  the  universe.  The  latter  have  the  ability  to  apprehend 
the  reality  of  the  visible,  tangible  world,  but  cannot  rise 
above  it — to  a  conception  of  necessary  being. 

Ingersoll — "Of  course,  upon  questions  like  this, 
nothing  can  be  absolutely  known." 

Comment — To  know  anything  absolutely  is  to  know 
it  in  all  its  relations  with  the  universe  and  with  God, 
with  the  necessary  and  the  contingent.  The  infinite  in- 
telligence alone  can  know  things  in  this  way,  and,  there- 
fore, on  "questions  like  these,"  or  any  other  questions, 
we  cannot  have  absolute  Tcnowledge,  because  our  minds 
are  finite.  But  this  does  not  prevent  us  from  knowing 
with  certainty  what  we  do  know.  We  know  not  God  ab- 
solutely, but  we  know,  with  certainty,  that  he  is. 


HONEST    THOUGHT.  35 

Ingersoll — "What  we  know  of  the  infinite  is  almost 
infinitely  limited,  but  little  as  we  know,  all  have  an  equal 
right  to  give  their  honest  thought." 

Comment — Has  any  man  the  right,  common  sense  be- 
ing the  judge,  to  talk  about  that  of  which  his  knowledge 
is  almost  infinitely  limited?  All  may  have  an  equal  right 
to  give  their  honest  thought,  but  none  have  the  right  to 
give  their  honest  thought  on  all  subjects  and  under  all 
circumstances.  Common  sense  and  decency  forbid  it. 
The  honesty  of  a  thought  does  not  give  weight  or  im- 
portance or  truth  to  it.  If  so,  lunatics  would  be  the  best 
of  reasoners,  for  none  are  more  honest  in  their  thoughts 
than  they.  Thought  must  be  judged  with  reference  to 
its  truth,  and  not  with  reference  to  the  honesty  of  him 
who  thinks  it.  This  plea  of  honesty  in  thinking  is  a 
justification  of  every  error  and  crime,  for  we  must,  in  the 
very  nature  of  the  case,  take  the  thinker's  word  for  the 
honesty  of  his  thought.  Guiteau,  if  we  can  believe  him, 
expressed  his  honest  thought  by  means  an  English  bull- 
dog revolver,  and,  if  your  theory  be  true,  he  had  a  right 
Xo  do  it. 

The  right  to  give  an  honest  thought  implies  the  right 
to  realize  that  thought  in  action  and  habit.  If  it  means 
less  than  this,  it  means  simply  the  right  to  gabble  like  an 
idiot.  I  assume  that  it  is  not  this  latter  right  you  claim. 
Then,  in  claiming  the  right  to  give  your  honest  thought, 
you  claim  the  right  to  realize  that  thought  in  act  and 
practice,  and  cause  it,  as  far  as  you  can,  to  permeate,  and 
obtain  in  human  society.  If  your  claim  for  liberty  of 
thought  means  less  than  this,  it  is  the  veriest  delusion. 

I  take  it,  then,  that,  in  claiming  the  right  to  give  your 


36  NOTES   ON   INGERSOLL. 

honest  thodght,  you  claim  ihc  right  to  promulgate  that 
thought,  and  to  put  it  in  practice  in  the  affairs  of  life. 
Now,  in  view  of  this  claim  of  yours,  I  ask,  by  what  right 
do  you  interfere  with  the  slave-holder's  honest  thought, 
or  the  Mormon's  honest  thought?  Your  plea  for  the  right 
of  expressing  honest  thought  is  a  miserable  pretense,  or 
else  by  it  you  mean  that  those  only  who  agree  with  you 
have  the  right  of  expressing  it  in  word  or  action.  The 
doctrines  of  our  loquacious  liberals,  when  analyzed,  will 
be  found  to  mean  precisely  this  and  nothing  more. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

SOMETHING    ABOUT    THE   DESIGN  OF  THE    UNIVERSE;    AND 


INGERSOLL's    "  CURIOUS  AND  WONDERFUL  THING 


MR.  INGERSOLL  next  proceeds  to  show  that  the 
argument  for  the  existence  of  God  drawn  from 
the  plan  or  design  of  the  universe  is  not  conclusive.  As 
Mr.  Black  did  not  advance  this  argument  I  am  at  a  loss 
to  understand  why  it  was  introduced  by  Mr.  Ingersoll, 
unless  it  was  to  give  us  a  specimen  of  his  ability  in  the 
way  of  metaphysical  skyrocketing.     Let  us  hear  him. 

Ingersoll— "  It  will  not  do  to  say  that  the  universe 
was  designed,  and,  therefore,  there  must  be  a  designer." 

Comment— Why  not,  if  all  have  a  right  to  give  their 
honest  thought? 

Ingersoll — "There  must  be  psoof  that  it  was  de- 
signed." 

Comment — Certainly,  and  that  proof  is  to  be  found  in 
every  work  on  theology  and  philosophy  that  treats  of  the 
subject.  As  a  lawyer,  you  know  that  proofs  are  not  to  be 
thrown  out  of  court  by  a  mere  stroke  of  the  pen.  It  was 
incumbent  on  you  to  examine  those  proofs  and  show  that 
they  are  not  conclusive,  or  accept  them.  Instead  of  this 
you  very  cunningly  leave  the  inference  that  no  such  proofs 
exist.  If  you  knew  of  those  proofs  you  should  in  all 
candor,  have  met  them  fairly ;  if  you  were  ignorant  ot 

37 


38  NOTES   ON    INGERSOLL. 

them,  you  should  have  informed  yourself  of  the  argu- 
ments on  the  other  side  before  you  undertook  to  answer 
them.  You  have  said  **  candor  is  the  courage  of  the 
soul."     Let  us  have  courage. 

The  proofs  given  by  theologians  and  Christian  philos- 
ophers that  evidences  of  plan  and  design  exist  in  this 
physical  universe  have  never  been  met  by  you.  Accord- 
ing to  the  rules  of  logic  they  are  good  until  you  meet  and 
overthrow  them.  This  you  must  do  by  reason,  and  not 
by  bald  assertion. 

Ingersoll — '*  It  will  not  do  to  say  that  the  universe 
has  a  plan,  and  then  assert  that  there  must  have  been  an 
infinite  maker." 

Comment — Of  course  it  will  not  do  to  merely  say  it 
without  any  proofs  to  back  the  statement,  as  you  say  so 
many  things,  and,  therefore,  Christian  scholars  invariably 
supply  those  proofs.  The  proofs  being  good  until  re- 
futed, it  does  and  must  follow  that  there  is  an  infinite 
planner,"  designer,  Creator. 

Ingersoll — *'  The  idea  that  a  design  must  have  a  be- 
ginning, and  that  a  designer  need  not,  is  a  simple  ex- 
pression of  human  ignorance." 

Comment — On  the  contrary,  it  is  one  of  the  highest 
reaches  of  human  reason.  But  you  have  evidently  lost 
the  thread  of  the  argument  you  are  trying  to  refute. 
Christian  philosophy  does  not  assert  that  the  plan  or  de- 
sign of  the  universe  had  a  beginning.  On  the  contrary, 
it  teaches  that  the  plan  or  design  existed  in  the  mind  of 
God  from  all  eternity,  and  is  the  elernal  archtype  of  all 
created  things.  The  universe  is  the  eternal  idea  of  God 
realized  in  time  and  space  by  the  creative  act.     To  say 


DESIGN    OF    THE    UNIVERSE^  39 

that  the  design  of  this  universe  had  a  beginning,  is  truly 
a  simple  expression  of  human  ignorance.  As  the  design 
is  eternal,  the  designer  must  be  eternal;  as  the  design 
had  no  beginning,  the  designer  has  none.  The  designs 
of  finite  minds  must  have  a  beginning,  because  they  par- 
take of  the  nature  of  their  designer,  but  we  must  not 
measure  God's  capacity -by  man's  incapacity,  an  error  you 
seem  incapable  of  avoiding. 

Ingersoll — ''  We  find  a  watch,  and  we  say:  So  curious 
and  wonderful  a  thing  must  have  had  a  maker." 

Comment- -The  Christian  does  not  assert  that  it  had  a 
maker  because  it  is  curious  and  wonderful,  but  because  it 
shows  evidence  of  having  been  7tiade.  The  curiousness 
and  wonderfulness  of  the  watch  suggests  the  idea  of  an 
intelligent  maker.  A  mud-pie  will  suggest  the  idea  of  a 
maker  equally  as  well  as  a  gold  chronometer. 

Ingersoll — *'  We  find  the  watchmaker  and  we  say: 
So  curious  and  wonderful  a  thing  as  man  must  have  had 
a  maker." 

Comment — Yes,  but  not  because  he  is  curious  and 
wonderful,  but  because  he  is,  and  is  finite.  Verily,  it 
would  be  unfortunate  for  Christianity  if  you  were  per- 
mitted to  present  its  case. 

Ingersoll — "We  find  God,  and  we  then  say:  He  is 
so  wonderful  that  he  must  not  have  had  a  maker." 

Comment — You  say  this,  but  "  we"  don't.  When  we 
find  God,  we  find  the  self-existent  Being,  infinite  and 
eternal,  and  therefore  we  say,  he  must  not  have  had  a 
maker.  This  is  the  way  the  Christian  reasons,  and  it  is 
somewhat  \iifferent  from  the  childish  nonsense  you  would 
put  into  his  mouth. 


46  NOTES   ON    INGERSOLL. 

Ingersoll — "In  other  words,  all  things  a  little  won- 
derful must  hav.e  been  created." 

Comment — You  use  that  word  **  wonderful"  as  a  boy 
uses  a  toy  drum,  to  the  disgust  of  all  who  hear  it.  All 
r.ungs  have  been  created,  not  because  they  are  curious 
and  wonderful,  but  because  they  exist  and  are  finite. 
The  microscopic  grain  of  sand  that  is  wafted  by  ll.« 
winds  and  the  waves  proves  the  existence  of  a  Creato; 
as  clearly  as  does  this  vast  and  wonderful  univG^.-e.  It 
is  not,  then,  as  you  say,  the  wonder  of  the  thing  that 
suggests  the  idea  of  creation,  but  the  existence  of  the 
thing. 

Ingersoll — "One  would  suppose  that  just  as  the  won 
der  increased,  the  necessity  for  a  creator  increased." 

Comment — The  one  who  would  so  suppose  must  \a 
suppesed  to  have  a  very  limited  knowledge  of  philosoph\» 
or  a  very  limited  intellect.  If  Christian  philosophy  were 
as  silly  as  you  have  represented,  or  rather  misrepresented 
it  above,  it  would,  indeed,  be  contemptible.  Candor  and 
honor  require  that  when  you  attack  a  system  or  an  in- 
stitution, you  should  attack  it  in  its  own  position,  and 
not  make  fictitious  and  absurd  positions  for  it,  and  then 
proceed  with  show  of  logic  to  demolish  the  nonsense  en- 
gendered in  your  own  brain  and  presented  to  the  public 
as  the  principles  of  Christian  philosophy.  To  misrepre- 
sent Christian  philosophy  is  a  confession  of  weakness, 
an  admission  that  it  must  be  misrepresented  before  it  can 
be  successfully  assailed. 

Ingersoll — "  Is  it  possible  that  a  designer  exists  from 
all  eternity  without  a  design?" 

Comment — Yes,  the  idea  of  a  self-existent,  eternal  de- 


A  CURIOUS   AND   WONDERFUL   THING.  41 

signer  excludes  the  idea  of  a  design  prior  to  or  independ- 
ent of  him.  This  is  so  self-evident  that  it  needs  only  to 
be  stated.  The  philosopher  who  asks  such  an  absurd 
question  is  like  his  watchmaker,  a  "  curious  and  wonder 
ful  thing." 

Ingersoll — "Was  there  no  design  in  having  an  infinite 
designer  ?" 

Comment — None  whatever,  since  there  cannot  be  any- 
thing back  of  the  infinite  and  eternal  designer.  There 
can  be  nothing  more  infinite  than  tlie  infinite,  nothing 
prior  to  the  eternal.  It  is  as  if  you  should  ask:  Is  there 
anything  more  circular  than  a  circle,  or  anything  squarer 
than  a  square? 

Ingersoll — "  For  me  it  is  hard  to  see  the  plan  or  de- 
sign in  earthquakes  and  pestilences." 

Comment — This  is  not  surprising,  since  you  have,  with 
commendable  humility,  admitted  that  what  you  know 
about  questions  like  these  is  almost  infinitely  limited. 
Until  you  see  or  understand  the  design,  it  is  inconsistent 
in  you  to  condemn  it.  A  boy  stood  near  the  railway  gaz- 
ing philosophically  at  a  passing  train.  A  burning  cinder 
from  the  smoke-stack  struck  him  in  the  eye.  He  mused 
on  the  incident  in  this  way:  '*  For  me  it  is  liard  to  see 
what  design  or  plan  this  great  corporation  could  have 
had  in  spending  vast  sums  of  money  to  throw  that  cindei 
in  my  eye.  It  is  somewhat  difficult  to  discern  design  or 
benevolence  in  it."  Who  will  say  that  boy  was  not  a 
philosopher  and  an  egotist,  or  that  a  fortune  does  not 
await  him  when  he  is  old  enough  to  take  the  lecture- 
field  ? 

Ingersoll — *'  It  is  somewhat  difficult  to  discern  the 


42  NOTES   ON    INGERSOLL. 

design  or  the  benevolence  in  so  making  the  world  that 
billions  of  animals  live  only  on  the  agonies  of  others." 

Comment — Until  you  prove  that  God  so  made  the 
world  that  billions  of  animals  live  on  the  agonies  of 
others,  you  are  not  called  upon  to  discern  design  or  be- 
nevolence in  this  agonizing  state  of  things.  It  does  not 
follow  because  agony  and  suffering  exist,  that  God  de- 
signed it  to  be  so.  It  is  for  you  to  prove  that  God  de- 
signed this  suffering  before  you  attribute  it  to  him.  You 
should  be  just — even  to  God. 

Whence,  then,  the  sufferings  of  this  world  ? 

Crime  is  the  result  of  human  liberty — though  not  a 
necessary  result — and  suffering  is  the  result  of  crime. 
Physical  evil  is  the  result  of  moral  evil,  and  moral  evil 
is  the  result  of  a  perverse  use  of  liberty,  which  is  good 
in  itself.  God  made  man  a  free  agent,  not  that  he 
might  abuse  his  freedom,  but  that  he  might  use  it  to  as- 
sist him  in  his  beneficent  design,  which  is  the  happiness 
of  his  creatures.  But  man  abused  the  gift  of  liberty,  and, 
in  doing  so,  produced  discord  in  universal  harmony. 
The  free  agent  man  proved  himself  untrue  to  his  trust. 
He  betrayed  it,  and  thus  became  a  victim  of  the  disorder 
he  himself  produced.  The  agent  is  responsible  to  his 
principal,  and  a  failure  to  perform  the  duties  assigned 
him  brings  upon  him  punishment  and  disgrace.  The 
pagan  philosopher  Plato  understood  this  when  he  wrote: 
"He  (the  wrongdoer)  is  not  able  to  see  that  evil  (suffer- 
ing), ever  utiiied  to  each  act  of  wrong,  follows  him  in 
his  insatiate  cravings  for  what  is  unholy,  and  that  he 
has  to  drag  along  with  him  the  long  chain  of  his  wrong- 
doings, both  while  he  is  moving  along  upon   this  earth, 


"a  curious  and  wonderful  thing."  43 

and  when  he  shall  take,  under  the  earth,  (in  hell  we 
would  say),  an  endless  journey  of  dishonor  and  frightful 
miseries." 

Evils,  that  are  the  results  of  man's  perversion  of  liberty, 
cannot  be  attributed  to  the  design  of  God;  and  those 
who  so  attribute  them  are  as  reasonless  as  the  ship- 
wrecked mariners  who  condemn  the  captain  for  the  suf- 
ferings which  they  brought  upon  themselves  by  their  dis- 
obedience to  his  commands,  or  as  the  criminal  who  at- 
tributes his  punishment  to  the  judge,  when  it  is  the  re- 
sult of  his  own  crime. 

While  admitting  the  existence  of  evils  and  sufferings  in 
the  world,  the  Christian  does  not,  and  is  not  bound,  by 
his  principles,  to  admit  that  they  are  the  result  of  the 
design  or  plan  of  God  in  creating  the  universe. 

To  those  who  see  in  man's  nature  and  destiny  nothing 
higher  than  that  of  the  grasshopper  or  the  potato-bug, 
who  believe  that  man's  life  ends  with  the  death  or  de- 
composition of  his  outer  shell,  there  must  be  something 
inexplicable  in  the  sufferings  of  this  life. 

But  to  the  Christian  who  looks  upon  this  life  and  its 
vicissitudes  as  a  mere  phase  of  man's  immortal  career, 
who  considers  this  world  of  time  as  the  womb  of  the 
eternal  years,  the  sufferings  of  this  life  are  but  the  tem- 
porary inconveniences  of  the  weary  traveller  on  his  home- 
ward voyage.  Their  weight  is  lightened  and  their  sharp- 
ness blunted  by  the  thought  of  home  with  its  comforts 
and  its  rest.  He  suffers  with  patience  and  resignation 
to  the  will  of  his  eternal  Father,  with  the  consoling  hope 
that,  when  he  is  freed  from  the  body  of  this  death,  he 
will  pass  into  the  eternal  day  where  death  and  pain  are 


44  NOTES   ON    INGERSOLL. 

known   no   more    forever.      Buoyed    up    by   faith    and 
hope  he  says  in  his  inmost  soul: 

'Beyond  the  parting  and  the  meeting 

I  shall  be  soon; 
Beyond  the  farewell  and  the  greeting, 
Beyond  the  pulse's  fever  beating 

I  shall  be  soon. 

Beyond  the  frost  chain  and  the  fever 

I  shall  be  soon; 
Beyond  the  rock- waste  and  the  river, 
Beyond  the  ever  and  the  never, 

I  shall  be  soon. 

Love,  rest,  and  home  ! 

Sweet  home  ! 

Lord,  tarry  not,  but  come." 


CHAPTER  V. 

ON   THE  JUSTICE  OF  GOD — A  FUTURE  STATE — SOME  SPECI- 
MENS OF  THE  colonel's  *'  HONEST"  METHODS. 

INGERSOLL— ''  The  justice  of  God  is  not  visible  to 
me  in  ilie  history  of  this  world." 
Comment — Might  not  this  strange  circumstance  arise 
from  intellectual  Staphyloma?  Grant  that  it  is  not  visi- 
ble to  you,  does  it  follow  that  it  is  not  in  this  world? 
Does  your  failure  to  see  it  demonstrate  that  it  is  not? 
When  you  make  your  limited  vision  the  measure  of  God's 
justice  you  usurp  the  attributes  of  the  infinite,  put  your 
judgment  above  his,  and  attempt  to  assume  his  place. 
Men  have  been  kindly,  but  firmly  consigned  to  insane 
asylums  for  such  philosophy;  and  curious  visitors  meet 
with  them  almost  every  day.  It  is  in  the  last  analysis 
a  question  of  God's  existence,  for  if  there  is  an  infinite 
self-existent  Being,  he  must,  from  his  very  nature,  be  in- 
finite in  everything,  and  if  in  everything,  infinite  in  his 
justice.  To  assert  that  lie  is  not  infinitely  just  is  to  deny 
his  existence.  But  your  statement  supposes  his  existence 
and  therefore  grants  his  infinite  justice.  If  then  that  jus- 
tice which  exists  by  the  logic  of  your  position,  is  not 
visible  to  you,  you  should  doubt,  not  it,  but  the  powers 
of  your  vision.  This  is  difficult  to  a  man  of  almost  in- 
finite self-assertive  capacity,  but  it  is  wisdom. 

45 


46  NOTES   ON    INGERSOLL. 

Ingersoll — "  When  I  think  of  the  suffering  and  death, 
of  the  poverty  and  crime,  of  the  cruelty  and  malice,  of 
the  heartlessness  of  this  '  plan'  or  *  design'  where  beak 
and  claw  and  tooth  tear  and  rend  the  quivering  flesh  of 
weakness  and  despair,  I  cannot  convince  myself  that  it 
is  the  result  of  infinite  wisdom,  benevolence,  and  justice." 

Comment — As  you  are  not  required  by  Christian  phil- 
osophy to  believe  that  the  evils  you  describe  were  a  part 
of  God's  plan  or  design  in  creating  the  universe,  you  are 
not  called  upon  to  reconcile  those  evils  with  God's 
wisdom,  benevolence  or  justice.  If  you  have  been  labor- 
ing under  the  notion  that  God  planned  and  designed  the 
miseries  of  this  world,  and  under  that  delusion  have  tried 
to  reconcile  the  original  plan  of  this  infinitely  just  God 
with  the  facts  of  life,  you  have  been  exhausting  your  en- 
ergies in  a  very  foolish  piece  of  business.  Your  very 
effort  in  that  direction  proves  that  you  have  not  grasped 
the  situation.  In  the  article  of  yours  that  I  am  now 
commenting  on,  you  confess  your  ignorance  of  the  divine 
plan  or  design,  and  yet  you  presume  to  atiribn^e  suffer- 
ing, death,  crime,  cruelty  and  malice  to  that  plan.  Above 
all  things  it  behoveth  a  pfiilosopher  to  be  consistent.  It 
is  unphilosophical  to  attribute  to  a  plan  objectional 
features  when  you  confess  ignorance  of  that  plan. 

Ingersoll — **  Most  Christians  have  seen  and  recog- 
nized this  difficulty  (that  of  reconciling  the  miseries  of 
this  life  with  the  justice  of  God),  and  have  endeavored  to 
avoid  it  by  giving  God  an  opportunity  in  another  world 
to  rectify  the  seeming  mistake  of  this." 

Comment — When  the  position  of  "  most  Christians"  is 
properly  and  truthfully  stated  there  is  no  difficulty  to  see 


THE    JUSTICE    OF    GOD.  47 

or  avoid.  The  other  world  exists  without,  reference  to 
man's  innocence  or  guilt,  happiness  or  misery  in  this. 
Your  insinuation  that  Christians  invented  the  future 
state  shows  either  discreditable  ignorance  of  the  history 
of  human  thought,  or  a  desire  to  misrepresent.  There 
is  no  middle  way  out  of  the  dilemma  for  you.  Ignor- 
ance is  a  crime  in  one  who  assumes  the  office  of  a  teacher 
of  his  fellow-men,  and  misrepresentation  is,  as  you  would 
say,  "singularly  and  vulgarly  out  of  place"  in  treating  of 
a  subject  that  requires  the  exercise  of  the  highest  facul- 
ties of  the  human  mind. 

The  doctrine  of  a  future  state  of  existence  has  been 
universally  believed,  especially  by  the  well-informed  of 
mankind  in  all  ages  and  places.  History  clearly  shows 
that  the  united  voice  of  ancient  nations  proclaimed  this 
doctrine.  The  Egyptians,  the  Persians,  the  Hindoos, 
both  Brahmists  and  Buddhists,  the  Chinese,  whether  the 
followers  of  Lao  Tzue,  Confucius,  or  Gautama;  the  Phoe- 
nicians, Assyrians,  Scythians,  Celts  and  Druids,  as  well 
as  the  Greeks  and  the  Romans,  believed  in  a  future  state. 
There  is  not  an  ancient  nation  or  tribe  of  which  history 
furnishes  an  account,  which  did  not,  with  greater  or  less 
clearness,  believe  in  a  future  state.  The  notions  of 
many  of  them  were  very  obscure  and  unsatisfactory,  em- 
bracing much  that  was  ridiculous  and  absurd;  but  still, 
though  shadows  and  and  darkness  and  clouds  rested  upon 
their  minds,  their  hopes  penetrated  the  gloomy  future, 
giving  evidence  of  an  internal  consciousness  of  the  in- 
sufficiency of  the  present  world  to  satisfy  the  ardent  as- 
pirations of  their  souls.  Our  American  Indians  believe 
in  a  future  state.     The  human  race,  then,  in  all  times,  has 


48  NOTES   ON    INGERSOLL. 

believed  in  a  future  state,  and  yet,  in  the  face  of  this 
Mississippi  current  of  human  thought,  you  have  the  un- 
utterable audacity  or  ignorance  to  say  that  Christians 
invented  it  to  give  God  a  chance  to  rectify  the  mistakes 
of  this!  Are  these  the  kind  of  weapons  you  hope  to  des- 
troy the  Christian  religion  with?  Can  you  afford  thus  to 
play  with  the  credulity  of  your  readers,  and  with  your 
own  reputation?     Honor  bright! 

Ingersoll — '*Mr.  Black,  however,  avoids  the  ques- 
tion by  saying:  We  have  neither  jurisdiction  nor  capac- 
ity to  rejudge  the  justice  of  God." 

Comment — To  state  a  truth  is  not  to  avoid  the  ques- 
tion. You,  however,  avoid  the  question  by  not  admit- 
ting Black's  proposition,  or  disproving  it.  It  is  the  hinge 
on  which  the  argument  turns,  and  you  should  not  have 
avoided  it.  If  Mr.  Black's  statement  is  true  then  you 
are  wrong  in  attempting  to  judge  of  God's  justice.  If 
his  statement  is  false,  then  you  are  right  in  so  judging. 

The  statement  of  Mr.  Black,  instead  of  avoiding  the 
question,  brought  it  to  a  direct  issue.  His  proposition, 
reduced  to  its  simplest  form,  is  this:  The  finite  cannot  be 
the  measure  of  the  infinite.  God's  justice  is  infinite;  ^^  «» 
human  mind  is  finite;  hence  the  latter  cannot  be  the 
measure  of  the  former — in  other  words,  we  have  not  the 
capacity,  and,  for  a  stronger  reason,  not  the  jurisdiction 
to  rejudge  the  justice  of  God.  This  is  the  clear  issue 
Mr.  Black  made  with  you,  but,  instead  of  meeting  it 
squarely,  as  candor  would  dictate,  you  proceed  to  avoid  it 
by  misstating  it.     Thus  you  say: 

Ingersoll — "  In  other  words,  we  have  no  right  to 
think  upon  this  subject — " 

Comment — This  is  neatly  done.     But  it  will  not  sue- 


THE    JUSTICE    OF    GOD.  49 

ceed.  Mr.  Black  did  not  say  we  have  no  right  to  ihifik. 
He  said  we  have  no  right  to  Judge,  and  it  seems  to  me 
that  any  adult,  whose  intellect  is  not  below  the  averag- , 
will  see  a  difference  between  thinking  2.x\A  judging.  You 
honor  the  truth  in  Mr.  Black's  proposition  when  you  try 
to  torture  it  out  of  shape  before  you  attempt  to  answer  it. 

Ingersoll — " — no  right  to  examine  the  questions  vitally 
affecting  human  kind." 

Comment — Here  you  are  again.  This  is  the  pettiest 
kind  of  verbal  thimble-rigging.  Mr.  Black  did  not  say 
we  have  no  right  to  examine  these  questions.  He  said 
we  have  no  right  to  rejudge  the  justice  of  God.  You  need 
not  be  told  that  there  is  a  difference  between  examining 
zx\di  judging.  I  cannot  believe,  in  view  of  your  knowledge 
of  the  English  language,  that  you  change  these  words 
without  a  purpose,  even  though  you  hold  that  "  candor  is 
the  courage  of  the  soul." 

Ingersoll — *'We  have  simply  to  accept  the  ignorant 
statements  of  the  barbarian  dead." 

Comment — We  accept  neither  the  ignorant  statements 
of  tlie  barbarian  dead,  nor  the  ignorant  statements  of  the 
atheistic  living.  We  are  averse  to  accepting  ignorant 
statements  from  any  man,  be  he  an  ancient  barbarian  or 
modern  pagan.  The  question  between  you  and  Mr.  Black, 
as  to  whether  the  finite  can  be  the  measure  of  the  infinite, 
is  one  that  cannot  be  settled  by  the  statements  of  anyone, 
ignorant  or  otherwise.  It  is  a  question  of  pure  reason, 
and  anyone  gifted  with  the  use  of  reason,  who  compre- 
hends the  meaning  of  the  terms  Jinite  and  injinite  will 
know  that  the  former  cannot  include  the  latter — in  other 
words,  that  the  finite  mind  has  not  the  capacity  or  juris- 
diction to  rejudge  the  ways  of  the  infinite  intelligence. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

TIffi    EXISTENCE  OF  GOD — LOGIC    AND  LEGAL     TENDERS — 
QUEER  ORIGIN  OF  HUMAN  REASON. 

INGERSOLL— "This  question  cannot  be  settled  by 
saying  that  it  weiild  be  a  mere  waste  of  time  and  space 
to  enumerate  the  proofs  which  show  that  the  universe  was 
created  by  a  pre-existent  and  self-conscious  being.  The 
time  and  space  should  have  been  wasted,  and  the  proofs 
should  have  been  enumerated.  These  proofs  are  what 
the  wisest  and  greatest  are  trying  to  ^nd." 

Comment — It  is  true,  nevertheless,  that  it  would  be  a 
waste  of  time  and  space  to  reproduce  those  proofs  that 
have  never  been  answered.  It  would  appear  that  you  are 
ignorant  of  those  proofs,  but  your  ignorance  of  them  does 
not  justify  JMr.  Black  in  exhausting  the  limited  space  given 
himi  to  reply  to  you,  in  reprinting  what  you  and  every 
man  who  makes  any  pretensions  to  a  knowledge  of 
philosophy  and  theology  are  supposed  to  know.  The 
wisest  and  greatest  of  mankind  have  known,  studied,  and 
pondered  those  proofs  and  have  been  convinced  by  them.' 
They  and  the  world  do  not  agree  with  you.  It  is  a  seri- 
ous mistake  on  your  part  to  imagine  that,  because  these 
proofs  are  unknown  to  you,  they  are  unknown  to  scholars 
in  this  line  of  thought,  or  that  tlie  **  wisest  and  greatest" 
are  tryinc:  to  find  them  because  you  have  not  found  them. 
50 


THE    EXISTENCE    OF    GOD.  5 1 

YoLi  do  yourself  honor  overmuch,  in  supposing  that  the 
wisest  and  greatest  are  iu  the  same  boat  with  you.  Is  it 
your  misfortune  or  theirs  that  the  best  thinkers,  in  ancient 
and  modern  times,  cannot  see  things  in  the  light  you  see 
them?  If  you  had  taken  Mr.  Black's  kind  hint  and 
studied  those  proofs  so  well-known  in  current  philoso- 
pliical  literature,  you  would  have  been  less  profligate  of 
statement;  and  you  would  have  learned  that  there  are 
many  things  worth  knowing,  not  dreamt  of  in  your 
philosophy. 

I  have  some  advantages  of  Mr.  Black.  I  am  not  deal- 
ing with  the  North  American  Review,  and  it  is  not  in  your 
power  to  shut  me  off  as  you  did  him  when  you  wanted  to 
stop.  I  can,  therefore,  afford  to  spend  some  space  and 
time  in  trying  to  familiarize  your  mind  with  the  proof  of 
a  supreme,  self-existent,  and  infinitely  wise  Being.  I  skall 
produce  tlie  argumsnt  of  a  philosopher  f®r  the  existence 
of  God.  I  do  not  deem  it  necessary  or  logically  called 
for,  just  l«ere,  to  do  this;  but  as  it  may  pr@ve  instructive 
to  you  I  give  it.      It  runs  in  this  way: 

I  allow  you  to  doubt  all  things  if  you  wish,  till  you 
come  to  the  point  where  doubt  denies  itself.  •  Doubt  is  an 
act  of  intelligence;  only  an  intelligent  agent  can  doubt. 
It  as  much  demands  intellect  to  doubt  as  it  does  to  be- 
lieve,— to  deny  as  it  does  to  affirm.  Universal  doubt  is, 
therefore,  an  impossibility,  for  doubt  cannot,  if  it  wouM, 
doubt  the  intelligence  that  doubts,  since  to  doubt  that 
would  be  to- doubt  itself.  You  cannot  doubt  that  you 
doubt,  and-  then,  if  you  doubt,  you  know  that  you  doubt, 
and  there  is  one  thing,  at  least,  you  do  not  doubt,  namely, 
that  you  doubt.     To  doubt  the  intelligence  that  doubts, 


52 


NorES    ON    INGERSOLL. 


would  be  to  doubt  that  you  doubt,  for,  without  intelligence, 
there  can  be  no  more  doubt  than  belief.  Intelligence, 
then,  you  must  assert,  for  without  intelligence  you  cannot 
even  deny  intelligence,  and  the  denial  of  intelligence  by 
intelligence  contradicts  itself,  and  affirms  intelligence  in 
the  very  act  of  denying  it.  Doubt,  then,  as  much  as  you 
will,  you  must  still  affirm  intelligence  as  the  condition  of 
doubting,  or  of  asserting  the  possibility  of  doubt,  for 
what  is  not,  cannot  act. 

This  much,  then,  is  certain,  that  however  far  you  may 
be  disposed  to  carry  your  denials,  you  cannot  carry  them 
so  far  as  to  deny  intelligence,  because  that  v/ould  be 
denial  of  denial  itself.  Then  you  must  concede  intelli- 
gence, and  then  whatever  is  essential  to  the  reality  of 
intelligence.  In  conceding  anything,  you  concede  neces- 
sarily all  that  by  which  it  is  what  it  is,  and  without 
which  it  could  not  be  what  it  is.  Intelligence  is  incon- 
ceivable without  the  intelligible,  or  some  object  capa- 
ble of  being  known.  So,  in  conceding  intelligence,  you 
necessarily  concede  the  intelligible.  The  intelligible  is, 
therefore,  something  which  is,  is  being,  real  being  too, 
not  merely  abstract  or  possible  being,  for  without  the 
real,  there  is  and  can  be  no  possible  or  abstract.  The 
abstract,  in  that  it  is  abstract,  is  nothing,  and  therefore 
unintelligible,  that  is  to^ay,  no  object  of  knowledge  or  of 
the  intellect.  The  possible,  as  possible,  is  nothing  but 
the  power  or  ability  of  the  real,  and  is  apprehensible  only 
in  that  power  or  ability.  In  itself,  abstracted  from 
the  real,  it  is  pure  nullity,  has  no  being,  no  existence,  is 
not,  and  therefore  is  unintelligible,  no  object  of  intelli- 
gence or  of  intellect,  on  the  principle  that  what  is  not  is 


THE    EXISTENCE   OF    GOD.  53 

not  intelligible.  Consequently,  to  the  reality  of  intelli- 
gence, a  real  intelligible  is  necessary,  and  since  the  reality 
of  intelligence  is  undeniable,  the  intelligible  must  be  as- 
serted, and  asserted  as  real,  not  as  abstract  or  merely 
possible  being.  You  are  obliged  to  assert  intelligence, 
but  you  cannot  assert  intelligence  witliout  asserting  the 
intelligible,  and  you  cannot  assert  tiie  intelligible  without 
asserting  something  that  really  is,  that  is,  without  assert- 
ing real  being.  The  real  being  thus  asserted  is  either 
necessary  and  eternal  being,  being  in  itself,  subsisting  by 
and  from  itself,  or  it  is  contingent  and  therefore  created 
being.  One  or  the  other  we  must  say,  for  being 
which  is  neither  necessary  nor  contingent,  or  which  is 
both  at  once,  is  inconceivable,  and  cannot  be  asserted  or 
supposed. 

Whatever  is,  in  any  sense,  is  either  necessary  and  eter- 
nal, or  contingent  and  created — is  either  being  in  itself, 
absolute  being,  or  existence  dependent  on  another  for  its 
being,  and  therefore  is  not  without  the  necessary  and 
eternal,  on  which  it  depends.  If  you  say  it  is  necessary 
and  eternal  being,  you  say  it  is  God;  if  you  say  it  is  con- 
tingent being,  you  still  assert  the  necessary  and  eternal, 
therefore  God,  because  the  contingent  is  neither  pos- 
sible nor  intelligible  without  the  necessary  and  eternal. 
The  contingent,  since  it  is  or  has  its  being  only  in  the 
necessary  and  eternal,  and  since  what  is  not,  is  not  in- 
telligible, is  intelligible  as  the  contingent,  only  in  neces- 
sary and  eternal  being,  the  intelligible  in  itself,  in  which 
it  has  its  being,  and  therefore  its  intelligibility.  So  in 
either  case  you  cannot  assert  the  intelligible  without  as- 
serting necessary  and  eternal  being;  and  therefore,  since 


54  NOTES    ON    INGERSOLL. 

necessary  and  eternal  being  is  God,  without  asserting 
God,  or  that  God  is;  and  since  you  must  assert  intelli- 
gence even  to  deny  it,  it  follows  that  in  every  act  of  in- 
telligence God  is  asserted,  and  that  it  is  impossible  with- 
out self-contradiction  to  deny  his  existence.* 

Ingersoll — ''  Logic  is  not  satisfied  with  assertion." 

Comment — Then  it  is  not  satisfied  with  your  assertion 
in  reference  to  it.  But  you  are  evidently  ignorant  of  what 
logic  means.  Logic  as  a  science  deals  with  principles, 
not  assertions;  and  logic  as  an  art  deals  with  assertions 
only.  Assertions  are  the  subject  matter  on  which  it  acts. 
It  simply  d:-duces  conclusions  from  assertions  or  proposi- 
tions called  premises,  and  cares  not  whether  these  premises 
are  true  or  false.  Hence  the  very  reverse  of  what  you 
say  is  true.  Logic  is  satisfied  with  assertions,  and  knows 
and  deals  with  nothing  else.  Your  blunder  arose  from 
your  confounding  reason  with  logic.  Reason  deals  with 
principles  and  truths,  logic  with  assertions.  That  reason 
is  not  satisfied  with  assertions  becomes  more  apparent  the 
more  your  article  on  the  Christian  Religion  is  subjected 
to  careful  analysis. 

Ingersoll — "  It  (logic)  cares  nothing  for  the  opinion 
of  the  great." 

Comment — If  those  opinions  are  formulated  into  as- 
sertions, it  does  care  for  them,  because  it  deals  with 
nothing  else.  You  meant  to  say:  Reason  cares  nothing, 
etc.  This  careless  use  of  words  and  confounding  of  terms 
in  licates  a  confused  and  imperfect  method  of  thinking. 
He  who  thinks  with  clearness  and  precision,  will  express 
his  thought  with  clearness  and  precision,  while  a  slovenly 

♦Brownson's  Quarterly  Review. 


LOGIC    AND    LEGAL    TENDERS.  55 

tiiinker  leaves  the  reader  in  a  state  of  chronic  doubt  as  to 
wiiat  is  meant. 

Ingersoll — "  In  the  world  of  science  a  fact  is  a  legal 
tender." 

Comment— Then,  before  you  can  assert  a  legal  tender, 
yo^i  must  demonstrate  a  fact.  A  fact  must  be  established 
as  such,  before  it  is  legal  tender.  Now  the  question  be- 
tween you  and  the  Christian  is  this:  What  are  the  facts.? 
The  wliole  controversy  rests  on  the  answer  to  this  ques- 
tion. What  you  offer  as  facts,  the  Christian  may  reject 
as  fallacies  and  sophistries,  and  what  he  offers  as  facts 
you  may  reject.  It  follows,  therefore,  that  until  both 
parties  agree  as  to  what  are  the  facts,  they  cannot  agree 
as  to  what  is  legal  tender.  X^iat  you  intended,  then,  as  a 
wise  saying  has  no  practical  sense  in  it.  But  for  those 
who  like  that  sort  of  thing,  it  is  about  the  sort  of  thing 
they  will  like. 

Ingersoll— ^*  A  fact  is  a  legal  tender." 

Comment — A  counterfeit  is  a  fact;  is  it  legal  tender? 
O!  no.  Well  then  a  fact  is  not  a  legal  tender  until  it  is 
known  to  be  a  fact.  What  is  a  legal  tender.?  It  is  a 
promise  to  pay  which  may  not  be  worth  ten  cents  on  a 
dollar,  but  which  the  law  compels  you  to  accept  when 
offered.  Is  this  your  idea  of  what  facts  are?  And  do 
you  intend  the  facts  offered  by  you  to  be  received  in  that 
light?     If  so,  perhaps  you  are  right. 

Ingersoll — "Assertions  and  miracles  are  base  and 
spurious  coins." 

Comment — If  this  be  true,  then  the  assertion  you  have 
just  made  is  base  and  spurious  coin.  You  say  all  asser- 
tions are  base  and  spurious.     Is  it  because  they  are  as- 


56 


NOTES   ON    INGERSOLL. 


sertions,  or  because  they  are  false?  If  all  assertions  are 
base  and  spurious,  we  cannot  believe  anything  whatever 
that  is  asserted,  simply  because  it  is  asserted.  I  assert 
that  two  and  two  make  four.  This  is  an  assertion.  Is 
it  false?  It  must  be,  if  what  you  say  is  true.  From  this 
it  appears  that  you  again  failed  to  say  what  you  meant; 
for  you  will  certainly  admit  that  some  assertions  are  true — 
your  own,  for  instance. 

Perhaps  you  meant  to  S2iy  false  assertions  are  base  and 
spurious.  If  so,  this  is  on  a  par  with  your  legal  tender 
sophism  and  involves  the  same  amount  of  meaningless 
verbiage.  The  truth  or  fallacy  of  an  assertion  must  be 
established  before  you  can  assert  it  to  be  base  and  spu- 
rious. But  the  truth  or  fallacy  of  an  assertion  is  the 
question  in  debate.  Let  me  illustrate:  I  make  the  asser- 
tion that  the  Christian  religion  is  of  divine  origin.  You 
will  observe  that  the  truth  or  fallacy  of  this  assertion  is 
the  point  in  debate,  and  to  assert  either  one  or  the  other 
without  proof,  is  to  beg  the  question.  This  you  do  when 
you  assert  that  assertions  are  base  and  spurious. 

But  perhaps  I  have  misunderstood  you  all  this  time. 
You  "probably  think"  that  all  assertions  favoring  Chris- 
tianity are  base  and  spurious,  while  all  those  against  it 
have  the  true  ring.  If  you  meant  this  you  should  have 
had  the  "courage  of  the  soul"  to  say  it,  and  not  hide 
your  insinuation  under  a  meaningless,  commonplace 
phrase.  I  notice  you  are  fond  of  making  curt  little 
maxims,  which  on  examination  mean  nothing,  unless 
when  they  cover  a  fallacy.  They  are  scattered  through 
your  article  so  liberally  as  to  lead  one  to  believe  you  in- 
tended them  for  argument.     But: 


QUEER    ORIGIN    OF    HUMAN    REASON.  57 

Ingersoll— '*  Miracles  are  base  and  spurious  coins." 

Comment — That  depends.  And  here  1  must  make  the 
same  distinction  I  made  in  regard  to  assertions.  If  a 
miracle  is  a  fact,  it  is  not  base  and  spurious.  Now  the 
fact  or  fallacy  of  a  miracle  is  the  point  in  debate.  Un- 
til that  point  is  settled,  not  by  assertions,  but  by  valid 
arguments,  you  cannot  say  that  it  is  spurious,  for  when 
you  make  that  assertion  you  simply  beg  the  question. 
To  beg  the  question  in  argument  is  like  asking  a  knight 
or  a  castle  of  your  opponent  in  a  game  of  chess.  It  is  a 
sign  of  conscious  weakness, 

Ingersoll — "  We  have  the  right  to  rejudge  the  justice 
even  of  a  god." 

Comment — If  by  '*a  god"  you  mean  some  deity  of 
heathen  mythology,  I  cannot  stop  to  consider  it.  If  you 
mean  the  infinite  Being,  whom  Christians  call  God,  I  deny 
your  right  or  competency  to  rejudge  his  justice,  for  rea- 
sons which  I  have  already  given,  and  which  I  need  not 
here  repeat.  It  is  sufficient  to  .say  that  the  finite  cannot 
be  the  measure  of  the  infinite. 

Ingersoll — "No  one  should  throw  away  his  reason — 
the  fruit  of  all  experience." 

Comment — Your  purpose  here  is  to  leave  the  impres- 
sion that,  to  be  a  Christian,  a  man  must  throw  away  his 
reason.  Man's  reason  is  a  gift  of  God,  and  God  requires 
him  to  exercise  and  use  it,  and  not  throw  it  away.  And 
he  will  one  day  ask  him  to  give  a  strict  account  of  the 
use  he  has  made  of  it.  While  telling  us  not  to  throw 
away  our  reason,  you  give  a  good  illustration  of  how  it 
can  be  thrown  away.     Thus  you  say: 

Ingersoll — "  Reason  is  the  result  of  all  experience." 


58  NOTES   ON    INGERSOLL. 

Comment — When  you  make  reason  the  result  of  expe- 
rience you  destroy  its  proper  entity.  Experience  is  im- 
possible without  something  that  experiences.  What  is  it 
that  experiences?  Reason?  No;  for  if  reason  is  the  re- 
suit  of  experience  it  cannot  exist  until  after  the  expe- 
rience has  been  completed.  What  then  is  it  that  experi- 
ences? The  individual?  But  the  individual  minus  reason 
is  incapable  of  apprehending  experience.  What  then  is 
it  that  experiences?  There  must  be  some  being  that  ex- 
periences, for  experience  cannot  exist  without  a  subject. 
The  mind?  But  mind  and  reason  are  identical.  Reason 
is  the  mind,  in  action.  The  fact  is,  human  reason,  or 
conscious  mind  is  that  which  experiences;  it  is  therefore 
prior  to  experience,  and  since  it  is  prior  to  experience,  it 
cannot  be  a  result  of  it.  Without  reason  experience  is  im- 
possible, and  therefore  when  you  make  reason  the  result 
of  experience  you  throw  away  both  reason  and  experi- 
ence. This  is  the  logical  result  of  your  proposition. 
Again  you  say: 

Ingersoll—"  Reason  is  the  fruit  oi  all  experience." 
Comment — By  this  "all"  you  mean,  I  suppose,  the 
experience  of  all  mankind  together  with  your  own.  But 
you  have  barred  yourself  from  the  right  to  benefit  by  the 
experience  of  others,  for  that  experience  can  be  made 
known  to  you  only  by  assertions  or  propositions.  Now, 
you  have  declared  ex  cathedra  that  assertions  are  base 
and  spurious  coins,  and  rejected  with  contempt  the  state- 
ments of  the  dead  past,  by  which  alone  the  experience  of 
the  human  race  €an  be  known.  You  have  sawed  off  the 
limb  on  which  you  sit,  and  deprived  yourself  of  all  expe- 
rienoe  except  your  own. 


QUEER    ORIGIN    OF    HUMAN    REASON.  59 

Ingersoll — "It  (reason)  is  the  intellectual  capital  of 
the  soul,  the  only  light,  the  only  guide^." 

Comment — Reason  is  the  soul  or  intellect  itself  in  con- 
scious action;  hence  it  cannot  be  its  own  intellectual 
capital,  or  its  only  light  and  guide.  You  se*m  to  forget 
what  you  have  said  before,  namely,  that  reason  is  the  re- 
sult of  experience.  Now,  to  say  that  reason  is  the  only 
light  and  guide  of  the  soul,  and  at  the  same  time  the  re- 
sult of  experience,  is  to  contradict  yourself.  What  lights 
and  guides  the  soul  while  it  is  experiencing?  Reason? 
No;  for  you  have  told  us  that  reason  is  the  result  of  that 
experience.  A  result  is  an  effect,  and  an  effect  cannot 
be  prior  to  its  cause.  It  follows,  then,  from  your  own  defi- 
nition, that  reason  is  not  and  cannot  be  the  only  light  or 
guide  of  the  soul.  But  even  if  you  had  not  contradicted 
yourself  egregiously,  your  assertion  that  reason  is  the  only 
light,  etc.,  cannot  be  accepted,  for  it  is  a  pitiable  begging  of 
the  whole  question  at  issue — a  denial  of  revelation  as  a 
guide  to  reason,  and  this  you  will  see  is  the  point  between 
you  and  the  Christian.  Your  statement  thus  cunningly 
assumes,  as  proved,  that  which  you  set  out  to  prove.  This 
is  one  of  the  peculiarities  of  your  method  in  debate.  It 
is  on  this  account  that  I  am  under  the  necessity  of  an- 
alyzing almost  every  assertion  you  make. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

ox  THE  TEN  commandments;  AND  ART THE  WIFE  AND 

OTHER  VALUABLE  PROPERTY. 

INGERSOLL— "  Of  course  it  is  admitted  that  most 
of  the  Ten  Commandments  are  wise  and  just." 

Comment — Most?  Why  this  indefinite  limitation?  Is 
it  candid  to  make  a  limitation  so  indefinite  as  to  leave 
you  room  to  dodge?  Why  not  specify  which,  if  any,  are 
not  wise  and  just?  Christians  are  bound  and  ready  to 
defend  them  all.  Why  not  point  out  an  unwise  or  unjust 
Commandment,  that  we  may  come  to  a  direct  issue? 

Ingersoll — "  In  passing,  it  may  be  well  enough  to 
say  that  the  commandment,  *  Thou  shalt  not  make  unto 
thee  any  graven  image,  or  any  likeness  of  anything  that  is 
in  the  heaven  above,  or  that  is  in  tlie  eartli  beneath,  or 
that  is  in  the  waters  under  the  eai  th,*  was  the  absolute 
death  of  art,  and  that  not  until  the  destruction  of  Jeru- 
salem was  there  a  Hebrew  painter  or  sculptor." 

Comment — There  are  two  assertions  here.  First,  that 
the  Commandment  quoted  was  the  absolute  death  of  art, 
and  second,  that  before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem 
there  was  no  Hebrew  painter  or  sculptor.  The  first  in- 
volves a  question  of  interpretation,  the  second,  a  question 
of  history. 

Now,  I  deny  both  these  assertions,  and  hold  that  they 
have  no  foundation  in  fact.     Here  is  a  direct  issue. 
60 


tHE   TEN   COMMANDMENTS.  6 1 

As  to  the  Commandment,  it  could  not  have  been  the 
absolute  death  of  art  unless  it  forbade  art.  But  it  did  not 
forbid  or  condemn  art,  therefore  it  was  not  the  death  of 
art.  Was  it  candid  or  honorable  in  you  to  suppress  that 
part  of  the  Commandment  which  explains  and  makes 
clear  the  meaning  of  that  which  you  quoted?  If  you 
garbled  the  law  in  quoting  it  in  a  court  of  justice,  would 
not  the  judge  look  upon  you  as  an  unprincipled  shyster? 
Would  he  not  be  justified  in  debarring  you  for  contempt, 
in  trying  to  deceive  and  mislead  the  court?  You  are 
fond  of  preaching  candor  and  honor  bright.  Was  it  can- 
did or  honorable  to  leave  out  of  your  quotation  that  sen- 
tence which  would  have  left  your  assertion  without  truth, 
force  or  point?  But  you  were  determined  to  make  your 
point  even  if  you  had  to  garble  the  law  you  quoted,  in 
making  it.  The  sentence  you  so  uncandidly  suppressed 
is  this:  '*  Thou  shall  not  adore  them  (i.  e.  images)  nor 
serve  them."  This  clause,  suppressed  by  you,  explains 
the  meaning  of  what  goes  before,  showing  that  it  was 
not  the  making  of  images,  but  the  making  gods  of  them, 
that  was  forbidden.  That  this  is  the  meaning  of  the  Com- 
mandment is  evident  from  the  fact  that  the  same  God 
who  spoke  in  the  First  Commandment  subsequently 
ordered  images  to  be  made.  Moses  explains  the  meaning 
still  further  when  he  says:  (Exodus,  20-23)  "You  shall 
not  make  gods  of  silver,  nor  shall  you  make  gods  of 
gold."  Again,  the  great  Hebrew  lawgiver  was  com- 
manded to  place  two  cherubim  on  the  very  ark  in  which 
the  Commandments  were  kept.  He  was  also  commanded 
to  make  the  brazen  serpent,  (Numbers  21-6  to  8).  In 
the   description   of   Solomon's  temple  we   read  of  that 


62  NOTES   ON    INGERSOLL. 

prince,  not  only  that  he  made,  in  the  oracle,  two  cherubim 
of  olive-tree,  of  ten  cubits  high  (i  Kings  6-23),  but  that 
"all  the  walls  of  the  temple  round  about  he  ca  rued  with 
divers  figures  and  carvings."  (i  Kings  6-29  and  following 
verses.  This  whole  chapter  abounds  with  descriptions  of 
works  of  art.)  When  David  imposed  upon  Solomon  the 
injunction  of  building  the  house  of  the  Lord,  he  delivered 
to  him  a  description  of  the  porch  and  temple  and  con- 
cluded by  saying:  "  All  these  things  came  to  me,  written 
by  the  hand  of  the  Lord,  that  I  might  understand  all  the 
works  of  the  pattern."  (i  Chronicles  28-11,  19.)  Thus  we 
see  that  God  not  only  commanded  the  making  of  images 
but  that  He  actually  exhibited  the  pattern.  And  yet  you 
sniffle  that  He  killed  art. 

Now  God  who  gave  the  Commandment,  and  the  Jew- 
ish people  who  received  it,  had  a  better  knowledge  of 
its  meaning  than  you  dare  pretend  to  have.  David  and 
Solomon  understood  the  law,  and  it  did  not  occur  to  them 
that  they  were  breaking  it  when  they  made  cherubim  and 
other  images  for  adornment  and  ornamenlalion. 

But  this  commandment,  you  say,  was  the  death — and 
not  only  the  death,  but  the  absolute  death  of  art.  What 
infatuation  has  taken  possession  of  you  to  say  this  in  the 
face  of  that  magnificent  temple  of  Jerusalem  and  all  the 
works  of  art  it  contained  ?  Was  not  the  temple  itself  a 
work  of  art  ?  And  those  images,  were  they  not  works 
of  art  ?  Since  the  commandment  as  interpreted  by  its 
maker — not  by  you — did  not  forbid  the  making  of  im- 
ages, it  could  not  have  affected  art,  unless  you  claim  for 
art  the  right  to  worship  false  gods  and  idols.  If,  there- 
fore, the  Jews  were  not  artists  you  must  seek  the  reason 


VALUABLE    PROPERTY.  6^ 

elsewhere  than  in  this  First  Commandment.  But  if  you 
condemn  the  Jews  for  not  cultivating  art  why  is  it  that 
you  have  no  words  of  commendation  for  Christianity  un- 
der whose  inspiration  and  influence  art  was  brought  to 
its  highest  development  ? 

Ingersoll — "Not  until  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem 
was  there  a  Hebrew  sculptor  or  painter." 

Comment — Well  then  who  "  sculped"  the  cherubim 
and  other  ornamentations  for  the  temple  of  Jerusalem  ? 
Who  made  the  cherubim  to  ornament  the  ark  of  the  cove- 
nant ?  Who  made  the  golden  calf  and  the  brazen  ser- 
pent ?  Surely,  it  requires  all  the  brass  of  the  brazen  ser- 
pent to  say,  in  the  face  of  all  this,  that  "  there  was  no  He- 
brew sculptor  before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem." 

Ingersoll — **Surely  a  commandment  is  not  inspired 
that  drives  from  earth  the  living  canvas  and  the  breath- 
ing stone — leaves  all  walls  bare,  and  all  the  niches  deso- 
late." 

Comment- -Surely  the  inventor  of  this  curious  crite- 
rion of  inspiration  deserves  recognition  of  some  kind. 
But  this  lachrymose  ejaculation  is  entirely  uncalled  for, 
since  the  Commandment,  when  not  garbled  by  you,  does 
not  forbid  the  living  canvas  or  the  breathing  stone,  the 
frescoed  wall  or  ornamented  niche.  As  we  have  seen,  the 
First  Commandment'has  nothing  to  do  with  art,  one  way 
or  the  other.  But  even  if  it  did  banish  the  living  canvas 
etc.,  from  the  earth,  it  would  not  follow  that  it  is  not  in- 
spired. Your  "surely  it  is  not  inspired"  is  no  proof  against 
inspiration.  One  who  worships  reason  and  logic  should 
exhibit  more  of  both. 

From  what  you  say  about  Art,  it  is  evident  that  you  do 


64  NOtES   ON    INGERSOLL. 

not  know  its  meaning  and  scope.  You  limit  it  to  sculp- 
ture and  painting  because  you  imagine  these  two  forms  of 
art  are  forbidden  by  the  Commandment.  Art  is  broader 
than  that.  I  will  give  you  a  definition  of  art,  which  will, 
if  you  study  it  well,  prevent  you  in  future  from  showing 
your  ears  to  quiet,  thoughtful  men  who  have  gone  somewhat 
deeper  than  you  have  into  philosophy  and  theology.  Art 
is  the  expression  or  manifestation  of  the  Beautiful.  It  is 
an  appeal  by  symbolism  to  the  senses.  It  treats  of  color 
and  form  which  are  an  appeal  to  vision;  letters  and  other 
outlines  which  are  an  appeal  to  the  intellect  through  the 
medium  of  sight;  vibratory  motion  which  appeals  to  the 
sense  of  hearing — called  music;  tangible  forms  which  talk 
to  the  sense  of  feeling;  and  combinations  which  appeal  to 
the  taste. 

Now,  the  death  of  Art  is  the  destruction  of  all  these 
methods  of  expression.  Do  you  pretend  to  say  that  the 
First  Commandment  destroys  or  forbids  all  these  methods 
of  expressing  or  manifesting  the  Beautiful  ?  No.  Well 
then  the  First  Commandment  is  not  the  death  of  Art,  even 
if  I  should  grant  all  you  claim,  which  of  course  I  do  not. 
Poetry  is  an  art — and  where  can  you  find  more  sublime 
specimens  of  it  than  in  the  psalms  of  David,  the  Book  of 
Job,  the  majestic  flights  of  Isaiah,  and  the  soul-piercing 
threnodies  of  Jeremiah  ?  Here  we  have  the  highest  genius 
and  the  highest  art.  And  yet  because  they  did  not  daub 
lecherous  pictures  on  canvas,  or  cut  naked  Venuses  out 
of  stone,  they  were  not  artists.  The  commandment  was 
the  death  of  art! — trash. 

Ingersoll — "  In  the  Tenth  Commandment  we  find 
women  placed  on  an  exact  equality  with  other  property, 


VALUABLE    PROPERTY.  65 

which,  to  say  the  least  of  it,  has  never  tended  to  the  amel- 
ioration of  her  condition." 

Comment — The  relative  nature  of  persons  and  things 
protected  by  law  is  not  measured  by  the  law  that  protects 
them.  A  law  may  forbid  murder  and  theft  at  the  same 
time  without  placing  these  two  crimes  on  the  same  plane,  or 
an  exact  equality.  As  a  lawyer  you  should  be  familiar  with 
this  fact.  This  Tenth  Commandment  forbids  to  covet  a 
neighbor's  wife,  and  at  the  same  time  it  forbids  to  covet 
his  property.  This  prohibition,  you  will  admit,  is  wise  and 
just  when  it  refers  to  that  which  is  most  beloved  of  and 
sacred  to  man.  It  is  equally  wise  and  just  when  it  pro- 
tects that  which  is  of  les¥  value  or  importance  to  him. 
Now,  do  you  pretend  to  say  that  these  two  objects  cannot 
be  at  the  same  time  forbidden  without  putting  them  on  an 
exact  equality?  If  the  Commandment  had  not  mentioned 
a  wife  you  would  have  taken  advantage  of  the  ommission 
and  held  that  it  left  the  wife  at  the  mercy  of  the  profli- 
gate, or  that  it  placed  a  higher  estimate  on  the  husband's 
horse  or  ox  than  on  the  wife  of  his  bosom,  or  that  it  pro- 
tected the  one  wliile  it  failed  to  protect  the  other.  So, 
whether  the  command  forbids  to  covet  a  neighbor's  wife, 
or  is  silent  on  the  subject,  you  are  not  satisfied.  You  are 
like  the  Frenchman  who  was  to  be  hanged,  neither  a  long 
nor  a  short  rope  would  suit   him. 

But  again:  as  a  lawyer  you  should  know  that  the  dis- 
tinction between  objects  protected  or  forbidden  by  law 
is  not  to  be  found  in  the  law,  but  in  the  punishment  in- 
flicted by  the  law.  The  civil  law  forbids  alike  the  steal- 
ing of  fifty  cents  and  one  hundred  dollars.  Does  the  law 
put  these  sums  on  an  exact  equality?     No;   for  it  sends 


66  NCFES   ON    INGERSOLL. 

the  fifty-cent  thief  to  jail,  while  it  sends  the  more  am- 
bitious fellow  to  State's  prison.  In  the  same  way  the 
Jewish  criminal  code  condemned  the  wife-stealer  to  death, 
while  he  who  stole  an  ox  was  required  to  return  it  and 
pay  a  heavy  fine.  From  the  difference  of  punishment 
you  can  see  that  the  Commandment,  as  understood  by 
those  to  whom  it  was  given,  made  a  distinction  between 
a  wife  and  an  ox,  and  did  not  place  them  on  an  "  exact 
equality." 

You  argue  like  a  man  who  places  much  confidence  in 
the  credulity  or  gullibility  of  his  readers,  and  imagines 
that  while  a  few  may  investigate  and  know  the  truth,  the 
larger  number  will  take  his  word  for  it,  and  inquire  no 
further.  This  policy  shows  a  good  knowledge  of  human 
nature,  for  the  average  man  is  not  overburdened  with 
the  faculty  of  discrimination.  He  is  apt  to  place  too  much 
confidence  in  the  ignorant  statements  of  that  monumental 
bore  of  modern  times,  the  roving  lecturer — admission 
fifty  cents. 


CHAPTER  VTTT. 

ONMURDER— CAN  A  ANITES- CAPTIVE  MAIDENS— MARAUD- 
ING— LYING  SPIRITS  AND  FALSE  PROPHETS. 

INGERSOLL—"  He    (God)    ordered  the   murder   of 
millions." 
Comment— He  never  authorized  or  ordered  the  mur- 
der oi  any  one,  from  Abel  to  Garfield.      God  is  the  author 
and  giver  of  life,  and  those  he  places  on  this  earth    he 
can  remove  at  his  will.      No   man  has  a  right  to  live  one 
instant  longer  in  this  world  than  his  Crea:or  wills  him  to 
remain,  be  he  yet   unborn,  or   innocent,  or   guilty.     As 
creatures  of  God  we  are  absolutely  his,  and  can  have  no 
rights   whatever  as  against   him.      To  God  the  death  of 
man  is  but  the  passing  from  one  state  of  exi-stence  to  an- 
other, from  one  department  to  another  in  the  same  uni- 
verse.    Death  is  not  annihilation,  or  reabsorption  into  the 
elements  of   matter,  but  a   transportation   from  one  state 
to  another  in  which    man  retains  his  individuality  and 
conscious   identity  as   truly  and    really  as   does   he  who 
passes  from   one   room   to   another   in  the   same   house. 
Physical   death,  therefore,  is    a   trifling  circumstance   in 
man's  immortal  career.     Now,  he  who   has  the   absolute 
right  to  transpose  man  from  one  state  of  being  to  another, 
has  equally  the  right  to  select  the  method  of  his  removal, 


68  NOTES   ON    INGERSOLL. 

whether  by  old  age,  disease,  the  deluge,  the  sword,  or  by 
what  we  call  accidents.  By  whatever  method  man  is 
withdrawn  from  life's  fitful  fever,  his  death  is  in  pursuance 
of  the  original  sentence  passed  on  the  race  by  an  infinitely 
just  Judge.  This  sentence  awaits  you,  and  your  philos- 
ophy will  not  obtain  you  a  stay  of  proceedings  or  an  ex- 
emption. 

But  to  return.  He  who  has  the  absolute  right  to  take 
Mfe,  cannot  be  guilty  of  murder  in  taking  it,  for  murder 
is  an  unjust  killing,  and  there  is  no  unjust  killing  in  the 
taking  of  life  by  him  who  has  the  absolute  right  to  lake 
it.  There  is  no  escape  from  this  reasoning  except  by 
denying  the  absolute  right,  and  you  cannot  dt  ny  this  but 
by  denying  God's  existence;  for  on  the  hypothesis  that 
he  exists,  he  is  Creator,  and  being  Creator,  the  absolute 
right  of  dominion  over  his  creatures" necessarily  follows. 
Then  in  the  last  analysis,  to  deny  this  right  is  to  deny 
God's  existence.  But  you  cannot  logically  deny  his  ex- 
istence, since  you  say  in  your  lecture  on  "  Skulls"  that 
you  do  not  know  whether  he  exists  or  not. 

It  follows  from  what  has  been  said  that  when  God  or- 
dered the  execution  of  the  guilty  Canaanites  it  was  not  a 
command  to  murder.  Nor  was  it  a  violation  of  his  own 
Commandment,  for  it  was  unjust  killing  that  he  forbade, 
and  the  destruction  of  that  guilty  people  was  just,  be- 
cause ordered  by  him  who  had  the  absolute  right  to  order 
it,  whether  they  were  guilty  or  not. 

I  have  dwelt  at  some  length  on  the  absolute  right  of 
dominion  of  the  Creator  over  his  creatures,  because  you 
harp  on  what  you  call  his  murders  through  your  whole 
article.     That  which  one  has  an  absolute  right  to  take  at 


ON    MURDER.  69 

any  and  all  times,  one  cannot  be  unjust  in  taking  when 
he  pleases. 

As  to  the  Canaanites,  they  were  guilty  of  death,  al- 
though they  vvere  not  put  to  death,  but  driven  from  Pal- 
estine in  about  the  same  manner  that  tlie  Whites  are 
driving  the  Indians  from  the  homesj)f  their  forefathers. 
The  unparelleled  wickedness  and  filtliy  abominations  of 
the  seven  nations  of  Palestine,  commonly  called  Canaan- 
ites, were  such  as  to  make  their  national  expulsion  or  ex- 
termination a  just  punishment  and  a  useful  lesson  to 
other  nations.  The  nature  of  their  crimes  may  be  found 
in  the  eighteenth  chapter  of  Leviticus.  Read  that  chap- 
ter, and  you  will  understand  why  Jehovah  held  these 
beastly  people  in  abiiorrence.  The  Mormons  and  Oneida 
Communists  are  as  pure  as  the  driven  snow  in  compari- 
son with  them.  To  give  the  reader  an  idea  of  their  in- 
credible debasement,  I  quote  some  verses  from  the  end 
of  the  chapter  wherein  God  warns  the  Hebrews  not  to 
imitate  their  example: 

"Defile  not  yourselves  with  any  of  these  things  with 
which  all  the  nations  have  been  defiled,  which  I  will  cast 
out  before  you.  And  with  which  the  land  is  defiled;  the 
abominations  of  which  I  will  visit;  that  it  may  vomit  out 
its  inhabitants.  Keep  ye  my  ordinances  and  judgments, 
and  do  not  any  of  these  abominations.  *  *  For  all 
thesci  detestable  things,  the  inhabitants  of  the  land  (Ca- 
naanites, Amhorites)  have  done  that  were  before  you, and 
have  defiled  it.  Beware  of  them  lest  in  like  manner  it 
vomit  you  also  out,  if  you  do  like  things,  as  it  vomited 
out  the  nation  that  was  before  you.  Every  soul  that  shall 
commit  any  of  these  abominations,  shall  perish  from  the 
midst  of  his  people." 


70  NOTES    ON    INGERSOLL. 

These  abominations  are  described  in  the  first  part  of 
the  chapter.  Read  it  carefully  that  you  may  know  the 
abominable  wretches  you  sympathize  with. 

The  author  of  the  Book  of  Wisdom  describes  some  of  the 
sins  of  those  people,  and  justifies  their  punishment  in 
words  tliat  I  cannot  do  better  than  quote: 

"Thou  chastisest  them  that  err,  by  little  and  little;  and 
admonishest  them,  and  speakest  to  them,  concerning  the 
things  wherein  they  offend;  liiat  leaving  their  wickedness 
they  may  believe  in  thee.  For  those  ancient  inhabitants 
of  the  holy  land,  whom  thou  didst  abhor,  because  they 
did  works  hateful  to  thee  by  their  sorceries  and  wicked 
sacrifices,  and  those  merciless  murderers  of  their  own 
children,  and  eaters  of  man's  bowels,  and  devourers  of 
blood  from  the  midst  of  thy  consecration;  and  those  pa- 
rents sacrificing  with  their  own  hands  helpless  souls,  it 
was  thy  will  to  destroy  by  the  hands  of  our  parents.  *  * 
Yet  even  those,  thou  sparedst  as  men,  and  did  send  wasps 
forerunners  of  thy  host,  to  destroy  them  little  by  little. 
Not  that  thou  wast  not  able  to  bring  the  wicked  under 
the  just  by  war,  or  by  cruel  beasts,  or  with  one  rough 
word  to  destroy  them  at  once.  But  executing  thy  judg- 
ment by  degrees  thou  gavest  them  a  place  of  repentance, 
not  being  ignorant  that  they  were  a  wicked  generation 
and  their  malice  natural,  and  that  their  thought  could 
never  be  changed.  *  *  Neither  didst  thou,  for  fear  of  any 
one,  give  pardon  to  their  sins.  For  who  shall  say  to  thee: 
What  hast  thou  done  ?  or  who  shall  withstand  thy  judg- 
ments ?  or  who  shall  come  before  thee  to  be  a  revenger 
of  wicked  men  ?  or  who  shall  accuse  thee  if  the  nations 
perish,  which  thou  hast  made  ?     For  there  is  n©  other  God 


ON    MURJJER.  71 

but  th©u,  who  hast  care  of  all,  tkat  thou  shouldst  show 
that  thou  dost  not  give  judgment  unjustly.  Neither  shdl 
king  nor  tyrant  in  tliy  sight  inquire  about  them,  wliom  thou 
hast  destroyed.  For  so  much  then  as  thou  art  just,  thou 
orderest  all  things  justly;  thinking  it  not  agreeable  to  thy 
power  to  condemn  him  who  deservest  not  to  be  punished. 
For  thy  power  is  the  beginning  of  justice,  and  because 
thou  art  Lord  of  all,  thou  makest  thyself  gracious  to  all. 
For  thou  showest  thy  power,  when  men  will  not  believe 
thee  to  be  absolute  in  power,  and  thou  convincest  the 
boldness  of  them  that  know  thee  not.  But  thou,  being  mas- 
ter of  power,  judgest  with  tranquillity,  and  with  great 
favor  disposest  of  us,  for  thy  power  is  at  hand  when  thou 
wilt.  *  *  Tliou  hast  made  thy  children  to  be  of  good  hope, 
because  in  judging,  ihou  givest  place  for  repentance  for  sins. 
For  if  thou  didst  punish  the  enemies  of  thy  servants,  and 
them  that  deserved  to  die,  with  so  great  deliberation, 
giving  them  time  and  place  whereby  they  might  be  changed 
from  tJieir  wickedness,  with  what  circumspection  hast  thou 
judged  thy  own  children,  *  *  therefore  whereas  thou 
chastisest  us,  thou  scourgest  our  enemies  in  very  many 
ways,  to  the  end  that  when  we  judge  tve  may  think  on  thy 
goodness,  when  we  may  be  judged,  we  may  hope  for  thy  mercy. 
Wherefore  thou  hast  also  greatly  tormented  them  who  in 
their  life  haye  lived  foolishly  and  ungodly,  by  the  same 
things  which  they  worshipped.  For  they  went  astray  for 
a  long  time  in  the  ways  of  error,  holding  those  things  for 
gods  which  are  the  most  worthless  among  beasts,  livmg 
after  the  manner  of  children  without  understanding. 
Therefore  thou  hast  sent  a  judgment  upon  them.  *  *  But 
they  that  were  not  amended  by  mockeries  and  reprehen- 


n 


NOTES   ON    INGERSOLL. 


sions,  experienced  the  worthy  fudgment  of  God."     (Wis- 
dom, Chapter  xii.) 

Here  we  find  that  those  people,  whom  you  beslaver 
with  your  gushing  sympathy,  were  sorcerers,  murderers 
of  their  own  children,  offering  them  with  their  own  hands 
in  sacrifice  to  idols,  and  man-eaters.  On  the  other  hand 
we  learn  the  merciful  way  in  which  Jehovah  warned 
them  and  gave  them  time  and  place  for  repentance. 
When  they  rejected  his  mercy  he  punished  tliem  with 
justice,  and,  for  doing  this,  you  accuse  him  of  murder. 
Those  who,  knowing  the  crimes  of  these  people,  condemn 
the  punishment  inflicted  on  ihem  are  as  guilty  as  they. 
You  condemn  Mormonism  and  Oneida  communism,  and 
yet  you  volunteer  to  advocate  those  bestial  Sodomites  of 
Canaan  whose  unnatural  crimes  disgraced  the  race  to 
which  they  belonged,  and  contaminated  the  land  which 
God  liad  given  them  to  dwell  in. 

'*A  fellow-feeling  makes  us  wondrous  kind." 

Ingersoll — "He  (God)  gave  captive  maidens  to  grat- 
ify the  lust  of  captors." 

Comment — If  I  were  an  infidel  or  an  atheist  zealous 
for  the  success  of  the  cause,  I  would  counsel  you  to  be 
less  reckless  in  your  statements.  Every  cause,  good  or 
bad,  suffers  from  injudicious  advocates.  The  most  in- 
judicious of  all  advocates  is  he  who  makes  a  baseless  as- 
sertion or  an  appeal  to  ignorance,  because  he  excites 
suspicion  apd  brings  discredit  on  the  cause  he  advocates. 
I  flatly  deny  the  truth  of  your  statement  given  above,  and 
appeal  to  the  only  record  that  can  give  us  any  informa* 


MARAUDING.  73 

tion  on  the  subject,  namely,  the  Old  Testament.  The 
Hebrew  military  laws  did  not  abandon  captive  women  to 
the  insolence  or  brutality  of  captors.  On  the  contrary, 
they  made  special  provision  forbidding  the  first  familiar- 
ities of  the  soldier  with  his  captives.  If  you  study  the 
twenty-first  chapter  of  Deuteronomy,  verses  lo  to  14,  you 
will  learn  that  the  soldier  was  obliged  to  make  the  captive 
his  wife,  or  to  respect  her  person  and  honor.  Instead  of 
tolerating  that  licentiousness  which  the  customs  and  laws 
of  other  nations  autliorized,  the  laws  of  the  Hebrews  kept 
the  soldier  in  restraint.  They  show  that  the  Hebrews 
were  far  in  advance  of  other  nations  in  all  those  regula- 
tions that  mitigate  the  horrors  of  war.  The  pagan  nations 
of  that  time  allowed  every  familiarity  with  captives,  and 
afterwards  they  were  sold  as  slaves,  or  given  to  the  lust 
of  slaves.  This  was  strictly  and  specifically  forbidden  by 
the  Hebrew  law.  And  yet  in  the  face  of  all  this,  you 
have  tlie  effrontery  to  charge  the  Almighty  witli  permit- 
ting the  Jews  to  do  that  which  he  forbade,  and  which 
they  alone,  of  all  ancient  nations,  prohibited  by  strict  and 
specific  laws.  What  will  honest  men  of  common  sense 
think  of  a  philosophy  that  has  to  be  propped  and  bol- 
stered up  by  sucli  shameless  misrepresentations  of  history? 

Ingersoll — "  He  (God)  gave  to  Jewish  marauders  the 
flocks  and  herds  of  others." 

Comment — Those  marauders,  as  you  call  them,  could 
not  possibly  have  had  a  better  title.  God,  as  Creator  of 
all,  has  absolute  dominion  over  all  things,  and  against  his 
title  there  is  none.  The  right  to  confiscate  property  is 
recogn>2ed  as  existing  in  all  civil  societ}  ;  now  civil 
society  -.annot  possess  and  exercise  a  higher  right  than  its 


y^  NOTES   ON    INGERSDLL. 

Creator.  Our  government  confiscated  millions  of  dollars' 
worth  of  property  during  the  late  war,  yet  it  never  oc- 
curred to  any  one  but  a  simian  philosopher  that  such 
confiscation  was  stealing.  The  cause  that  justifies  the 
war  justifies  the  confiscation. 

After  the  battle  of  Shiloh,  I  saw  hundreds  of  wagon- 
loads  of  cottoii  passing  North  towards  Pittsburg  Landing. 
It  belonged  to  the  Southern  people,  and  the  government 
had  taken  it  and  sold  it  to  Northern  speculators,  or  ma- 
rauders as  you  would  call  them.  It  was  the  Southman's 
flock  and  herd.  The  government  had  confiscated  it  and 
given  it  away  for  a  consideration.  You  vindicate  this 
measure,  and  you  are  .right  in  doing  so.  But  on  what 
principle  can  you  justify  our  government  in  confiscating 
the  property  of  its  enemies  while  you  condemn  the  same 
measure  when  practised  by  the  Hebrew  government? 
Confiscation  is  a  war  measure,  and  it  is  a  merciful  one, 
because  it  tends  to  end  war. 

Ingersoll — "  He  (God)  sent  abroad  lying  spirits  to 
deceive  his  own  prophets.'* 

Comment — I  will  give  one  hundred  dollars  to  the  poor 
of  this  village  if  you  or  any  of  your  disciples  will  make 
good  your  statement.  I  am  familiar  with  the  texts  in 
Kings  and  Ezechiel  which  you  probably  imagine  will  bear 
you  out,  but  if  you  carefully  compare  those  texts  with 
your  statement  you  will  find  that  your  zeal  has  run  away 
with  your  discretion,  and  that  your  hatred  of  your  Maker 
is  more  intense  than  your  love  for  the  truth. 

God  abhors  lying  spirits,  false  prophets,  false  philos- 
ophers and  deceivers  of  all  kinds,  ancient  and  modern, 
and  yet  he  permits  them  to  exist  because  he  cannot  make 


LYING    SPIRITS    AND    FALSE    PROPHETS. 


75 


them  impossible  without  destroying  free  will  or  human 
liberty.  There  were  laws  enacted  condemning  these  false 
prophets  and  other  popular  seducers,  but  these  laws  were 
not  enforced  because  the  false,  prophets,  etc.,  flattered 
the  passions  of  the  people,  telling  them  pleasant  things. 
They  were  popular  lecturers  in  their  day,  and  they  did 
not  die  without  issue. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

RELIGIOUS  TOLERATION — FREE  THOUGHT,  AND  TREASON. 

INGERSOLL— "  The  religious  intolerance  of  tiie  Old 
Testament'  is  justified  upon  the  ground  that  'blasphemy 
was  a  breach  of  political  allegiance,'  and  that  idolatry 
was  an  act  of  overt  treason,  and  that  '  to  worship  the  gods 
of  the  hostile  heathen  was  deserting  to  the  public  enemy, 
and  giving  him  aid  and  comfort.*" 

Comment — If  these  positions  of  Mr.  Black  are  well 
taken  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  you  can  escape  their  logical 
consequence.  For  you  must  admit  that  overt  treason, 
breach  of  political  allegiance,  and  giving  aid  and  comfort 
to  the  enemy,  are  crimes  that  merit  severe  punishment. 
If  you  were  a  logician  you  would  have  known  that  to  re- 
fute Mr.  Black  you  should  have  shown  that  blasphemy 
and  idolatry  were  not  overt  acts  of  treason.  This  you 
did  not  even  attempt  to  do.  Hence,  so  far  as  argument 
is  concerned,  Mr.  Black  has  justified  what  you  call  the  in- 
tolerance of  the  Old  Testament.  Is  a  government  intol- 
erant because  it  will  not  tolerate  treason?  If  not,  then 
the  Jewish  government  was  not  intolerant,  and  the  fact 
that  God  was  its  direct  ruler  does  not  change  the  nature 
of  the  case.  Every  government  that  is  wort3^y  of  the 
name  must  be  intolerant  of  all  those  things  that  touch  its 
supreme  authority,  majesty  and  honor.  The  Southern 
76 


RELIGIOUS    TOLERATION.  77 

revolt  was  no  more  treason  against  the  United  States 
government,  tlian  were  idolatry  and  blasphemy  against 
the  Jewish  government.  You  became  a  Colonel  to  assist 
the  government  to  punish  that  attack  on  its  supreme 
authority,  majesty  and  honor.  What  new  light  has  pene- 
trated your  skull  that  you  now  defend  treason  in  Tudea? 
Is  it  because  God,  against  whom  you  seem  to  have  a  per- 
sonal grudge,  was  the  direct  ruler  there?  If  you  should 
carry  out  your  theories  of  toleration  to  their  logical  con- 
clusion and  realize  them  in  overt  acts  in  this  country  you 
would  find  yourself  in  due  time  dangling  from  a  gibbet. 
It  does  not  seem  to  have  occurred  to  you  that  it  was 
necessary  to  disprove  Mr.  Black's  statement,  that  idolatry 
was  treason,  before  you  could  drive  him  from  his  position. 
If  you  grant  that  idolatry  was  treason  against  the  Jewish 
state  you  give  away  your  case,  and  justify  the  punish- 
ment which  that  state  inflicted  on  the  idolater.  No  man 
with  an  atom  of  sense  will  attempt  to  deny  this.  To  meet 
Mr.  Black  squarely  and  logically  you  should  have  proved 
that  idolatry  was  not  treason,  and  if  you  could  not  do 
this,  as  most  certainly  you  could  not,  you  should  have 
"  walked  up  like  a  man"  and  admitted  that  the  Jews  were 
right,  and  not  only  right,  but  were  bound  to  punish  idol- 
atry and  blasphemy  with  de^th,  as  treason  is  punished  in 
all  times  and  by  all  nations,  whether  God  is  the  immedi- 
ate head  of  the  government  or  not. 

Ingersoll — "According  to  Mr.  Black,  we  should  all 
have  liberty  of  conscience  except  when  directly  governed 
by  God." 

Comment — If  by  "  liberty  of  conscience"  you  mean 
liberty  to  commit  overt  acts  of  treason,  you  should  not 


78  NOTES   ON    INGERSOLL. 

need  to  be  told  that  such  liberty  of  conscience  is  not,  and 
should  not  be,  permitted  to  exist  anywhere,  not  even  in 
badly-regulated  lunatic  asylums. 

The  slave-holder's  conscience  told  him  that  secession 
was  right.  As  long  as  his  conscience  was  purely  specu- 
lative the  government  of  the  United  States  allowed  him 
to  amuse  himself  with  it.  But  when  he  formulated  that 
conscience  of  his  into  overt  acts,  such  as  firing  on  Fort 
Sumpter,  the  government  sent  Col.  Ingersoll  and  other 
embryo  Caesars  down  to  interview  and  inform  him  that 
liberty  of  conscience  was  a  good  thing  in  its  way — a 
something  to  keep  his  mind  busy — but  if  he  was  such  a 
consummate  ass  as  to  imagine  that  the  United  States 
government  intended  him  \o  practise  that  liberty  publicly 
he  would  have  to  readjust  his  ideas  about  it  on  a  more 
solid  basis. 

Just  so  with  idolatry  and  blasphemy  under  the  Jewish 
government.  A  man  might  be  an  idolater  in  his  heart, 
lie  might  think  "damn"  to  any  extent,  without  becoming 
amenable  to  the  Jewish  criminal  code,  but  when  he  for- 
mulated his  conscience  into  overt  acts  of  treason  the  sword 
of  Gideon  was  unsheathed. 

The  Mormon  heard  of  this  "  liberty  of  conscience," 
and  "freedom  of  thought. 'e  And  taking  you  at  your 
word,  and  thinking  that  vour  motto  of  *^honor  bright" 
meant  something,  he  believed  he  was  conscience  free. 
He  concluded  to  take  unto  him  two  wives.  Judge  of  his 
astonishment  when  he  heard  your  denunciations  of  him. 
He  concluded,  as  every  man  possessing  even  a  suspicion 
of  brains  will  conclude,  that  all  your  talk  about  liberty 
of  conscience  and  liberty  of  thought  is  mere  misleading 


RELIGIOUS    TOLERATION.  79 

twaddle.  It  appears  that  "  liberty  of  conscience"  means, 
according  to  you,  only  the  right  to  do  what  you  approve 
of.  You  condemn  polygamy.  Do  you  not  make  your 
judgment  the  limit  of  the  Mormon's  liberty  of  con- 
science? Jehovah  made  his  judgment  the  limit  of  liberty 
for  tiie  Jew,  and  you  condemn  him  for  it,  while  you  draw 
a  circle  of  limitation  around  the  Mormon.  You  should 
try  to  be  consistent. 

Ingersoll — "  In  that  country  where  God  is  king 
liberty  cannot  exist." 

Comment — This  is  your  conclusion,  not  Mr.  Black's. 
Grant  society  or  government,  and  it  is  of  no  consequence 
whether  X,  Y,  or  Z  is  its  king;  the  principli?  of  its  action 
must  be  the  same  in  reference  to  those  things  which  touch 
its  Authority. 

The  most  perfect  liberty  exists  where  the  most  perfect 
government  exists — that  you  will  admit.  The  most  per- 
fect government  is  that  which  is  directed  by  the  most 
perfect  wisdom  and  judgment,  which  are  attributes  of 
the  most  perfect  being  only.  God  is  the  most  perfect 
being;  that  you  must  admit  if  you  admit  his  existence. 
Then  it  follows  that  where  God  directs  the  government, 
there  the  most  perfect  liberty  exists.  By  liberty  I,  of 
course,  mean  the  right  to  do  right.  The  right  or  liberty 
to  do  wrong  is  claimed  by  no  civilized  government  on 
earth  that  assumes  to  decide  between  right  and  wrong; 
nor  does  any  government  admit  such  right  in  those  sub- 
ject to  its  authority.  There  are  individuals,  of  course, 
who  claim  the  liberty  to  do  wrong,  but  they  are  com- 
paratively few.  Some  of  them  have  died  suddenly  and 
prematurely  by  dislocation  of  the  neck,  and  some  others 


So  NOTES    ON    INGERSOLL. 

are  in  the  penitentiary.  Poor  encouragement  for  disciples 
of  liberty  of  license  and  heroes  of  free  thought. 

Ingersoll — '*  Within  the  Old  Testament  was  no  such 
thing  as  religious  toleration." 

Comment — Certainly  not,  and  for  the  very  sufficient 
reason  given  by  Mr.  Black.  Religious  toleration  meant 
liberty  of  treason".  Mr.  Black  told  you  that  idolatry  was 
treason  against  the  state  and  against  its  recognized  ruler. 
The  Jewish  nation  could  no  more  tolerate  treason  than 
any  other  government  can  tolerate  it. 

Ingersoll — "  Within  that  volume  can  be  fouiid  no 
mercy  for  the  unbeliever." 

Comment — If  unbelief  culminates  in  persistent  trea- 
son, it  finds  no  mercy  under  any  government  worthy  of 
the  name.  • 

Ingersoll — "  For  all  who  think  for  themselves,  there 
are  threatening  curses  and  anathemas." 

Comment — This  I  deny.  Thinking  for  oneself  is  not 
forbidden.  Thinking  is  an  act  of  which  from  its  nature 
government  can  take  no  cognizance.  The  punishment 
inflicted  by  the  Jewish  law  was  for  over^  acts.  Thought 
was  punished  only  when  it  was  treasonable,  and  when 
put  forth  in  overt  act.  There  is  a  huge  fallacy  in  all  this 
cant  about  freedom  of  thought,  thinking  as  we  please,  etc. 
The  intellect — I  mean,  of  course,  a  sane  intellect — is  gov- 
erned by  motives  and  principles  of  reason,  not  by  the 
whims  of  the  will.  Will  to  think  that  two  and  two  make 
five,  or  that  paralled  lines  will  meet,  and  see  if  your  rea- 
son will  tolerate  it. 

Ingersoll — "Think  of  an  infinite  Being  who  is  so 
cruel,  so  unjust,  that  he  will  not  allow  his  children  liberty 
of  thought." 


FREE    THOUGHT.  8l 

Comment — It  is  because  he  is  infinite  that  he  cannot 
saaction  error,  idolatry,  and  other  moral  evils.  Because 
he  is  infinite,  he  cannot  permit  his  children  to  disobey  his 
known  will,  or  to  reject  his  teachings  as  if  he  were  a  liar. 
The  only  liberty  of  thought  which  he  does  not  allow  is 
the  liberty  to  think  error,  to  meditate  evil,  to  plan  crime. 
Do  you  insist  on  this  kind  of  thinking?  If  so,  be  wise 
and  keep  it  carefully  in  your  thought,  for  if  you  reduce 
this  liberty  to  act  it  may  lead  to  the  penitentiary,  where 
there  are  many  philosophers  of  liberty  of  thought. 

Ingersoll — ''Think  of  an  infinite  God  aciing  as  the 
direct  governor  of  a  people,  and  yet  not  able  to  command 
their  love  !" 

Comment — It  is,  indeed,  a  subject  worthy  of  careful 
thought.  God  freed  that  people  from  the  bondage  of  Egypt 
by  a  series  of  most  wonderful  miracles,  fed  them,  for 
nearly  half  a  century,  in  the  desert,  gave  them  the  land  of 
Palestine  to  live  in,  and  blessed  them  in  a  thousand  ways, 
and  yet  he  could  not  command  their  love!  Verily  they 
were  a  stiff-necked  people.  This  want  of  appreciation 
of  the  divine  beneficence  is  one  of  the  most  convincing 
proofs  of  man's  original  fall. 

Ingersoll — "  Think  of  the  author  of  all  mercy  im- 
bruing his  hands  in  the  blood  of  helpless  men,  women 
and  children  simply  because  he  did  not  ftirnish  them  ivith 
intelligence  e?iough  to  understand  his  law/'* 

Comment — Think  of  a  man  who  is  always  talking  about 
"  honor  bright,"  manhood,  and  truth,  making  such  a  false 
and  groundless  statement  to  intelligent  readers.  I  have 
italicized  the  words  in  the  above  quotation  which  contain 
a  blasphemous  fallacy.     On  what  evidence  or  authority 


82  NOTES   ON    INGERSOLL. 

do  you  assert  that  men,  etc.,  were  punished  simply  because 
they  had  7iot  intelligence  enough  to  understand  the  law? 
What  evidence  have  you  that  they  did  not  understand  the 
law?  Did  those  who  were  punished  ever  make  this  plea 
in  extenuation  of  their  crimes  ?  This  calumny  against 
your  Creator  and  Judge  is  an  invention  of  your  own,  pure 
and  simple.  It  is  a  principle  of  revealed  ethics  that 
those  who  have  not  intelligence  enough  to  understand 
the  law  are  not  bound  by  the  law,  and  that  idiots  and 
the  insane  are  not  judged  by  the  law. 

You  quote  a  passage  from  Deuteronomy  xiii.,  wherein 
death  is  decreed  against  those  who  entice  others  to  cooi'^ 
mit  idolatry,  and  you  add: 

Ingersoll— "  This  is  the  religious  liberty  of  the  Bible." 

Comment — Now,  as  we  have  seen,  idolatry  was  treason 
against  the  state.  Do  you  mean  by  religious  liberty  the 
right  to  commit  treason?  If  so,  religious  liberty  is  in- 
compatible with  social  order,  making  all  forms  of  gov- 
ernment impossible.  We  have  a  case  in  point.  Major 
Andre  enticed  Arnold  to  commit  treason.  Was  Wash- 
ington an  enemy  of  liberty  because  he  hung  fhe  spy? 

Ingersoll — "  If  you  had  lived  in  Palestine,  and  if  the 
wife  of  your  bosom,  dearer  to  you  than  your  own  soul, 
had  said:  *  I  like  the  religion  of  India  better  than  that  of 
Palestine/  it  would  have  been  your  duty  to  kill  her." 

Comment — This  is  not  true,  for  the  law  forbids  the  en- 
ticing to  idolatry,  to  acts  of  treason.  And  the  mere  ex- 
pression of  an  opinion,  although  it  showed  bad  taste  and 
worse  judgment  on  the  part  of  the  wife,  yet  her  silly  say- 
ing was  not  what  was  forbidden  by  the  law. 


TREASON.  B$ 

Ingersoll — "If  she  had  said:  'Let  us  worship  the 
sun,'  it  was  your  duty  to  kill  her." 

Comment — Here  we  have  a  clear  case  of  enticing  to 
treason,  which  is  itself  treason.  Idolatry  was  treason 
against  the  sovereign  of  the  Jewish  state.  The  laws  of 
all  nations  punish  treason  with  death,  and  we  cannot  see 
that  it  makes  any  difference  whether  the  traitor  be  a  man 
or  a  woman.  The  traitor  should  be  removed  from  the 
body  politic  as  you  would  remove  a  cancer  from  your 
jaw,  your  mawkish  sentimentalism  to  the  contrary  not- 
withstanding. 

Ingersoll— "  Is  it  possible  that  a  being  of  infinite 
mercy  ordered  a  husband  to  kill  his  wife  for  the  crime 
of  having  expressed  an  opinion  on  the  subject  of  re- 
ligion?" 

Comment — The  law  you  quoted  from  Deuteronomy 
says  nothing  about  expressing  an  opinion  on  the  subject 
of  religion.  It  says:  "  If  thy  brother,  tl^y  son,  thy 
daughter,  or  the  wife  of  thy  bosom  *  *  eniice  thee 
secretly,  saying:  Let  us  go  and  serve  other  gods''  It  seems 
that  there  is  something  more  here  than  the  mere  expres- 
sion of  an  opinion  on  the  subject  of  religion. 

Ingersoll — "  Has  there  been  found  upon  the  records 
of  the  savage  world  anything  more  perfectly  fiendish  than 
this  commandment  of  Jehovah?" 

Comment — I  do  not  know  much  about  the  records  of 
the  savage  world,  or  that  savages  were  given  to  keeping 
records,  but  I  do  know  that  the  law  which  punishes  treason 
with  death  is  to  be  found  upon  the  records  of  all  civilized 
nations  on  earth. 

Ingersoll — "This  is  justified  on  the  ground  that  bias- 


84  NOTES   ON    INGF.RSOLL. 

phemy  was  a  breach, of  political  allegiance,  and  idolatry 
an  act  of  overt   treason." 

Comment — And  if  you  were  possessed  of  average  log- 
ical acumen  you  would  see  that,  until  you  overthrow  that 
position,  tlie  justification  is  complete.  There  are  only 
two  ways  by  wliicli  Mr.  Black's  position  can  be  over- 
thrown. First,  by  denying  his  statement  as  a  historical 
fact,  or,  second,  by  proving  that  treason  is  not  a  crime, 
and  should  not  be  punished  with  death.  You  do  not  at- 
tempt eiiiier  of  these  modes  of  refutation.  You  content 
yourself  with  giving  a  half-page  of  the  softest  and  sflliest 
kind  of  gus:i,  in  which  you  exhibit,  to  a  remarkable  degree 
the  faculty  of  Goldsmith's  schoolmaster  who,  although 
beaten ,  could  argue  still.  Here  is  a-specimen  of  your  style 
of  argument: 

Ingersoll — "We  can  understand  how  a  human  king 
stands  in  need  of  the  services  of  his  people.  We  can 
understand  how  the  desertion  of  any  of  his  soldiers 
weakens  his  army;  but  were  the  king  infinite  in  power, 
his  strength  would  still  remain  the  same,  and,  under  no 
conceivable  circumstance,  could  the  enemy  triumph." 

Comment — While  you  are  understanding  so  many 
things  it  would  be  well  to  understand  that  God  does  not 
inflict  punishment  because  he  fears  the  loss  of  power, 
but  because  he  must  insist  upon  respect  and  obedience 
to  his  supreme  authority — he  cannot  permit  himself  to  be 
treated  as  an  idiot  king  or  as  a  liar.  You  should  also  un- 
derstand that  the  guilt  of  treason  does  not  depend  on  its 
success.  Is  treason  any  the  less  criminal  because  it  is 
committed  against  God  ?  or  must  he  refrain  from  the  ex- 
ercise of  power  to  compel  obedience  simply  because  he 
is  all-powerful  ? 


TREASON.  85 

Ingersoll — "  His  strength  would  still  remain  the 
same." 

Comment — Undoubtedly,  but  it  is  not  a  question  of 
strength,  it  is  a  question  of  authority.  You  should  un- 
derstand that  the  strength  of  a  king  or  government  is  not 
the  measure  or  criterion  of  treason.  Treason  is  an  attack 
on  authority,  or  the  right  and  title  to  rule.  In  this,  and 
not  in  its  failure  or  success,  consists  its  malice.  God 
does  not  stand  in  need  of  his  people,  but  he  insists  on 
obedience  and  respect  to  his  supreme  authority.  He 
who  has  the  right  to  make  law  has  the  right  to  insist  on 
obedience  to  law  by  punishing  the  law-breaker. 


CHAPTER  X. 

SOME  GUSH METHODS  OF  WARFARE — CHEEK THE  COLO- 
NEL ON  INFANTRV  TACTICS,   BABIES,  AN^  DRY-NURSING. 

INGERSOLL— "  I  insist  that  if  there  is  an  infinitely 
good  and  wise  God,  he  beholds  with  pity  the  misfor- 
tunes of  his  children." 

Comment — I  insist  on  the  same,  but  we  must  distin- 
guish between  misfortune  and  crime,  misfortune  and 
wickedness. 

Ingersoll — '*  I  insist  that  such  a  God  would  know  the 
mists,  the  clouds,  the  darkness  enveloping  the  human 
mind." 

Comment — He  does  know  and  take  into  account 
these  disadvantages  in  dealing  with  his  creatures.  But 
are  you  not  a  little  inconsistent?  Some  pages  back  you 
exalt  the  human  mind,  and  claim  for  it  the  right  to  re- 
judge  the  justice  of  God,  and  now  you  deplore  the  clouds 
and  mists  and  darkness  that  enshroud  it.  The  highest 
wisdom  as  well  as  duty  of  the  human  mind,  suffering 
under  the  v/eaknesses  you  deplore,  is  to  hear  the  words 
of  God  and  obey  th§m,  and  not  misuse  the  little  light  it 
has  left  it  in  denying  his  existence,  or  making  him  the 
s«bject  of  its  blasphemous  jests. 

Ingersoll — "  His  pity,  not  his  wrath,  would  be  ex- 
cited by  the  effort  of  his  blind  children,  groping  in  the 

night  to  find  the  cause  of  things." 
86 


METHODS    OF    WARFARE.  87 

Comment — And  yet  you  would  make  these  blind  chil- 
dren the  judges  of  his  justice  !  God  does  pity  those  who 
grope  in  darkness,  or  who  are  misled  by  false  philos- 
ophers, and  in  proof  of  it  he  offers  them  the  light  of  his 
revelation  to  enlighten  the  night  and  dissipate  tlie  clouds; 
but  those  who  shut  their  eyes  to  it  and  disobey  his  laws, 
he  punishes.  God  requires  us  not  only  to  worship  him, 
but  to  worship  him  alone,  and  in  the  manner  he  pre- 
scribes. 

Ingersoll — "  An  infinitely  good  Being,  had  he  the 
power,  would  answer  the  reasonable  prayer  of  an  honest 
savage  even  when  addressed  to  wood  and  stone." 

Comment — God  is  infinitely  just  and  merciful.  He 
knows  the  hearts  of  men,  and  judges  them  according  to 
their  lights,  opportunities  and  circumstances.  It  would 
be  in  keeping  with  his  infinite  goodness  to  hear  the 
reasonable  prayer  of  the  hone'st  but  mistaken  savage  and 
answer  it  by  enlightening  his  mind,  making  known  to  him 
his  will,  and  forbidding  him  to  worship  idols.  If  this 
savage  should  persist  in  his  idolatry,  after  being  forbid- 
den, he  would  be  no  longer  an  honest  savage,  but  a  diso- 
bedient cliild  deserving  punishment, 

Ingersoll — "Tlie  atrocities  of  the  Old  Testament,  the 
threatenings,  maledictions  and  curses  of  the  *  inspired 
book,'  are  defended  on  the  ground  that  the  Jews  had  a 
rigiU  to  treat  their  enemies  as  their  enemies  treated 
them." 

Comment — Here,  with  your  usual  facility,  you  confound 
and  jumble  together  things  of  different  natures.  Mr. 
Black  defended  what  you  call  the  atrocities  of  the  Jews 
recorded  in  the  Old  Testament,  on  the  principle  r^cog- 


88  NOTES   ON    INGERSOLL. 

nized  by  all  peoples  and  nations,  pagan  philosophers  and 
Christian  apostles,  that  the  right  to  exist  implies  the  right 
to  repel  the  opposing  force  that  threatens  destruction.  If 
enemies  come  to  conquer,  a  nation  has  a  right  to  conquer 
them;  if  they  give  no  quarter,  they  have  a  right  to  none; 
if  the  death  of  the  whole  population  be  their  purpose,  it 
is  riglU  to  defeat  it  by  putting  them  all  to  the  sword  if  it 
be  necessary.  These  principles  are  self-evident,  and  are 
recognized  by  all  nations,  and  practised  by  all  except 
Christian  nations;  and  if  the  latter  do  not  practise  them 
it  is  because  the  benign  influence  of  Christianity  has  re- 
fined the  sentiments  and  softened  the  harsher  features  of 
man's  nature,  in  which,  however,  something  of  the  savage 
and  the  ghoul  always  remains. 

As  to  the  threatenings,  maledictions,  etc.,  they  are  de- 
fended on  very  different  grounds,  although  you  pretend 
to  ignore  the  fact  for  the  purpose  of  placing  your  op- 
ponent in  a  false  position.  God  is  the  Creator  and  Su- 
preme Ruler  of  the  universe  and  of  all  men.  As  such, 
man  owes  liim  allegiance  and  obedience.  The  threaten- 
ings and  miiedictions  are  for  those  who  disobey,  for 
traitors,  blasphemers,  and  idolaters.  The  threatenings, 
etc.,  are  only  the  formal  announcements  of  punishments 
which  will  be  inflicted  on  the  transgressor.  Our  own 
government  threatens  death  to  the  murderer  and  im- 
prisonment to  the  thief.  The  form  of  threat  may  be 
different,  but  tlie  substance  is  the  same.  These  threats 
have  no  terrors  for  the  law-abiding  citizen. 

Mr.  Black  in  his  reply  to  you  said:  "  In  your  treatment 
of  hostile  barbarians  you  not  only  may  lawfully,  you  must 
nece'T.sarily,  adopt  their  mode  of  warfare:  if  they  give  no 


INFANTRY    TACTICS.  .  89 

quarter,  they  are  entitled  to  none,"  etc.  With  your  usual 
'*  candor"  you  evade  the  principle  involved  in  this  prop- 
osition. If  the  principle  is  true,  it  is  true  for  all,  boih 
Christian  and  pagan.  If  it  is  false  or  unjust  or  barbarous 
you  should  have  shown  it  to  be  so.  This  was  the  only 
course  left  to  you  as  a  logician.  You  do  not  attempt  to 
do  this,  but  try  to  meet  it  in  this  way: 

Ingersoll — "For  one  who  follows  the  Master  who 
said  that,  when  smitten  on  one  cheek,  you  must  turn  the 
other,  and  again  and  again  enforced  the  idea  that  you 
must  overcome  evil  with  good,  it  is  hardly  consistent  to 
declare  that  a  civilized  nation  must,  of  necessity,  adopt  the 
warfare  of  savages." 

Comment — And  this  is  the  only  reply  to  your  oppo- 
nent's self-evident  proposition!  Let  us  examine  it,  such 
as  it  is.  First,  then,  the  Master  did  not  say,  as  you  re- 
port  him,  that,  when  smitten  on  one  cheek,  you  must  turn 
the  other,  or  that  you  w«.y/ overcome  evil  with  good.  He 
recommended  his  followers  individually  to  return  good 
for  evil,  but  he  did  not  forbid  them  to  repel  unjust  ag- 
gression by  exercising  the  necessary  force,  nor  did  he  in- 
tend his  children  to  be  spittoons  and  footballs  for  the  rest 
of  mankind.  Neither  did  he  intend  that  Christian  peoples 
or  governments  should  lodge  murderers,  thieves,  and 
savages  in  palaces  and  feed  them  on  chicken-pie.  He 
meant  that,  as  individuals,  we  should  be  kind,  patient, 
forbearing,  charitable,  and  forgiving.  He  did  not  mean 
that  nations  as  such  should  be  so  weak  or  imbecile  as  to 
fail  to  maintain  their  own  existence,  dignity  and  authority. 
Nations,  however,  do  sometimes  overcome  evil  by  good — 
that  is,  by  a  good  thrashing,  judiciously  administered  to 


90  NOTES    ON    INGERSOLL. 

their  enemies.  Evil-doers,  murderers,  and  thieves  are 
overcome  by  good  wlien  the  law  and  punishment  are 
properly  applied. 

Ingersoll — "  It  is  hardly  consistent  (in  a  follower  of 
the  Master)  to  declare  tliat  civilized  nations  must,  of  ne- 
cessity, adopt  the  warfare  of  savages." 

Comment — Do  you  imagine  that  when  your  opponent 
said  this,  he  meant  the  details  or  incidents  of  war?  Do 
you  believe  he  intended  that  we  must,  of  necessity,  throw- 
away  our  Remington  rifles,  take  to  bows  and  arrows, 
go  to  wearing  breech -clouts  and  eating  raw  dog,  when 
fighting  Indians?  Your  opponent  distinctly  staled  what 
he  meant  by  "mode  of  warfare,"  when  he  said:  "If  the 
enemy  come  to  conquer  you,  you  may  conquer  them:  if 
they  give  no  quarter,  they  are  entitled  to  none;  if  the 
death  of  the  whole  population  be  their  purpose,  j-ou  may 
defeat  it  by  exterminating  theirs."  You  do  not  deny  or 
refute  this  position,  but  you  pretend  to  believe  he  meant 
ravishment  for  ravishment,  mutilation  for  mutilation, 
scalping  for  scalping,  baby-braining  for  baby-braining. 
This  gave  you  an  opportunity  for  a  display  of  your 
rhetoric,  and  it  must  not  be  lost.  Speaking  of  braining 
babies  reniinds  me  that  infants  stand  you  to  good  pur- 
pose, and  are  made  to  do  considerable  duty  in  all  your 
writings  and  lectures.  You  trot  them  out  on  all  occa- 
sions, and  in  all  conditions  of  deshabille.  Those  infants 
waddle  and  crawl — and  so  forth,  through  your  article  so 
promiscuously  as  to  remind  one  of  a  foundling  asylum, 
with  yourself  as  peripatetic  dry-nurse  in  ordinary.  By 
the  way,  wer^  you  not  once  a  colonel  of  infantry?  The 
old    soldier   loves  to  dwell  on   the  reminiscences  of  the 


INFANTRY    TACTICS.  9I 

past.  But  heaven  help  you  if  those  infants  ever  live  to 
take  revenge  for  your  worse  than  Herodian  cruelty. 
When  you  want  to  reason  with  men  on  great  questions, 
you  should  send  the  children  to  the  nursery,  with  orders 
to  have  them  well  supplied  with  what  the  old  Dutch 
woman  used  to  call  "bread  and  milk  ''poultice."  This 
will  keep  them  in  good  condition  until  you  want  to  trot 
them  out  again  in  your  next  lecture  on  Christianity. 

Ingersoll — -"  Is  it  possible  that  in  fighting,  for  in- 
stance, the  Indians  of  America,  if  they  scalp  our  soldiers 
we  should  scalp  theirs?" 

Comment — Civilized  nations  look  more  to  the  killing 
than  to  the  manner  of  it,  because  they  understand  that 
viciory  depends  more  on  the  number  killed  than  on  the 
metiiod  of  killing.  This  knowledge  gives  the  civilized 
nation  the  advantage  over  the  savage.  A  soldier  who 
pays  strict  attention  to  business  during  battle  will  send 
ten  Indians  to  the  happy  hunting-ground  for  every  scalp 
that  is  taken.  To  stop  to  take  a  scalp  is  to  lose  precious 
time;  and  this  is  the  reason,  the  only  reason,  why  the 
soldier  should  prefer  his  own  tactics  to  those  of  the  sav- 
age. If  experience  proved  that  scalping  would  produce 
greater  intimidation  on  the  mind  of  the  savages  and  cause 
them  to  stop  their  aggression  and  offer  terms  of  peace 
and  guarantees  for  good  behavior  in  future,  it  would  be 
good  generalship,  good  policy,  and  good  mercy,  to  throw 
aside  the  rifle  and  take  to  scalping  as  soon  as  possible. 
Civilized  people  go  to  war  to  make  peace.  If  that  peace 
can  be  procured  quicker  by  taking  a  few  scalps  than  by 
taking  lives,  it  should  be  done  without  hesitation.  It  is 
merely  a  question  of  policy  as  to  the  conduct  of  the  war, 


92  NOTES    ON    INGERSOLL. 

to  bring  it  to  a  speedy  termination.  As  long  as  the  In- 
dian actually  loses  by  his  scalping  tactics  it  is  wise  to 
leave  to  him  that  field  of  enterprise. 

Ingersoll — "If  tiiey  kill  the  babes  in  our  cradles 
must  we  brain  I  heirs?" 

CoMMEN  r — Here  they  are  again — yes,  by  all  means, 
brain  them,  tear  them  limb  from  limb,  salt  ihem,  ship 
them  to  the  Cannibal  islands,  make  them  read  your  article 
on  the  Christian  Religion,  or  your  lecture  on  "Skulls" — 
do  anything  with  them  to  keep  them  from  muddling  your 
brains  when  you  are  reasoning  with  men  on  subjects  that 
require  all  your  attention. 

Ingersoll — "  If  they  should  take  our  captives,  bind 
them  to  trees,  and  if  their  squaws  fill  their  quivering  flesh 
with  sharpened  fagots  and  set  them  on  fire,  that  they  may 
die  clothed  in  flame,  must  our  wives,  our  mothers,  and 
our  daughters  follow  their  fiendish  example?" 

Comment — No,  and  for  several  reasons.  There  is  a 
cheaper  and  quicker  method  of  getting  rid  of  those  fiend- 
ish squaws.  It  is  much  easier  to  shoot  them  on  the  spot 
than  to  pack  off  to  the  wilderness  of  the  far  west  "our 
wives,  mothers  and  daughters"  to  stick  sharpened  fagots 
into  them.  Civilization,  among  other  things,  teaches  us 
the  science  of  economy;  that,  when  killing  must  be  done, 
it  should  be  done  quickly  and  cheaply,  that  the  burden 
of  the  tax  payer  may  not  be  increased  more  than  neces- 
sary. 

Let  us  suppose  a  case.  A  hundred  of  "  our  captives" 
are  about  to  be  bound,  to  undergo  the  death-torture  in- 
flicted by  these  squaws.  The  sharpened  fagots  are  ready. 
Now,  if  the  braining  of  an  Indian  babe  would  so  terrorize 


BABIES    AND    DRY-NURSING.  93 

these  maternal  squaws  as  to  cause  them  to  desist  from 
their  wicked  purpose  would  the  braining  of  that  infant  be 
barbarous?  Put  yourself  in  the  place  of  one  of  those 
trembling  captives  and  answer.  Will  you  save  the  lives 
of  those  hundred  captives  by  taking  one  life?  If  you 
think  on  this  for  a  few  moments  you  will  understand  what 
your  opponent  meant  when  he  said:  "We  must,  of  neces- 
sity, adopt  their  mode  of  warfare." 

Ingersoll — "  Is  this  the  conclusion  of  the  most  en- 
lightened Christianity?" 

Comment — Yes,  sir;  and  the  conclusion  is  of  the  most 
enlightened  common  sense,  too.  Life  is  practical,  it  is 
neither  poetry  nor  effeminate  philosophy.  The  passions 
of  human  nature,  civilized  or  barbarous,  make  stern  al- 
ternatives necessary  and  lugubrious  cant  will  not  change 
man's  nature  or  tlie  necessities  that  arise  from  it.  If 
tliose  fiendisli  squaws  had  lived  in  Palestine  in  the  days 
of  Jcsue  and  had  been  put  to  the  sword  by  tlie  Jews,  you 
would  have  accused  the  latter  of  murder  and  made  God 
an  abettor  of  the  crime.  Much  depends  on  the  point  of 
view  from  which  we  look  at  a  thing. 


CHAPTER  XI. 

WARS — SLAVERY — SOME  OF  THE  COLONEL'S  MISREPRESENT 
TATIONS. 

INGERSOLL— "Mr.  Black  justifies  the  wars  of  exter- 
mination and  conquest  because  the  American  peo- 
ple fvought  for  the  integrity  of  their  own  country,  fought 
to  do  away  with  tlie  infamous  institution  of  slavery,  fought 
to  preserve  the  jewels  of  liberty  and  justice  for  themselves 
and  for  their  children." 

Comment — I  submit  this  ebullition  of  eloquence  to  the 
reader  for  the  purpose  of  informing  him  that  it  is  a  mis- 
representation of  Mr.  Black,  a  misrepresentation  which 
it  is  hard  to  imagine  to  have  been  accidental  or  uninten- 
tional. It  is  not  true  that  Black  justifies  v/ars  of  exter- 
mination because  the  American  people  fought  for  the  in- 
tegrity of  their  country.  Here  is  the  way  he  justifies 
wars  of  extermination:  "  If  they  (the  enemy)  come  to  con- 
quer you,  they  may  be  conquered  by  you;  if  they  give 
no  quarter,  they  are  entitled  to  none;  if  the  death  of  your 
whole  population  be  their  purpose,  you  may  defeat  it  by 
exterminating  theirs."  You  could  not  have  been  ignorant 
of  this  principle,  for  you  quoted  these  very  words  in  your 
article.  Nor  did  Black  justify  wars  of  conquest  because 
the  American  people  fought  for  the  integrity  of  their  coun- 
try. He  quoted  you  as  saying;  "  A  war  of  conquest  is 
94 


WARS. 


95 


simply  murder."  To  meet  this  statement  of  yours  he  said: 
"To  show  how  inefficacious  for  all  practical  purpose  a  mere 
sentiment  is,  when  substituted  for  a  principle,  it  is  only 
necessary  to  recollect  that  Mr.  Ingersoll  is  himself  a  war- 
rior who  stood  not  behind  the  mighty  men  of  his  tribe 
when  they  gathered  themselves  together  for  a  war  of  con- 
quest. He  took  the  lead  of  a  regiment  as  eager  as  him- 
self to  spoil  the  Philistine,  *  and  out  he  went  a-coloneling.'  " 
As  you  do  not  seem  to  have  understood  your  opponent's 
argument  I  will  put  it  in  a  more  simple  form.  It  was  what 
is  called  an  argumeniuin  ad  hoitiinem^  and  syllogistically 
stands  thus: 

According  to  Mr.  Ingersoll:  "  A  war  of  conquest  is  sim- 
ply murder." 

But  the  war  with  the  South  was  a  war  of  conquest. 
Therefore,  the  war  against  the  South  was  simply  murder. 
Now  Mr.  Ingersoll  participated  in  that  war,  therefore 
Mr.  Ingersoll  was  a  party  to  the  crime  of  murder. 

This  was  your  opponent's  argument  in  logical  form. 
You  evidently  saw  its  force.  You  could  not  extricate 
yourself  except  by  misrepresentation,  and  you  did  not 
hesitate  a  moment.  Therefore  you  said:  "Mr.  Black 
justifies  the  wars  of  extermination  and  conquest,  because 
the  American  people  fought  for  the  integrity  of  their  own 
country." 

You  perpetrated  this  misrepresentation  to  make  a  way 
to  escape  from  the  trap  in  which  you  were  caught,  and  to 
afford  you  a  field  for  a  little  cheap  sentimental  gush  about 
"  slavery"  and  the  *' jewels  of  liberty,"  hoping,  with  the 
instinct  of  the  cuttle-fish,  you  might  get  away  in  the 
muddinsss  you  had  created.     But,  my  dear  sir,  it  will  not 


96  NOTES   ON    INGERSOLL. 

do,  for  society  is  not  entirely  made  up  of  fools,  {jar  war 
with  the  South  was  a  war  of  conquest,  for  a  war  of  con- 
quest is  a  war  to  conquer,  and  that  is  what  we  meant 
when  we  sent  armies  to  the  South.  If  conquest  is  mur- 
der then  you  are  guilty  of  murder  in  proportion  to  your 
importance  in  that  war.  But  you  have  said  a  war  of 
conquest  is  simply  murder.  Then  according  to  the  ada- 
mantine rules  of  logic  you  are  simply  a  murderer.  That 
is  where  your  opponent  landed  you. 

You  justify  the  war  with  the  South  by  saying  that  it 
was  to  maintain  the  integrity  of  the  country,  etc.  The 
justification  is  complete;  but  what  follows  from  it.'  Why, 
it  follows  that  wars  of  conquest  are  sometimes  justifiable, 
which  is  the  very  thing  you  denied  when  you  said  that 
"a  war  of  conquest  is  murder."  When  you  said  that  your 
mind  was  on  the  Jew;  you  wanted  to  lay  down  a  princi- 
ple that  would  surely  condemn  him  and  his  God,  and  you 
did  not  see  that  you  were  making  a  murderer  of  yourself. 
Ex  parte  philosophy  is  poor  philosophy.  You  are  a  stu- 
dent of  the  infidel  philosophers  of  the  last  and  present 
centuries,  but  you  have  not  caught  their  genius  or  com- 
prehended their  bulk.  You  take  their  points  here  and 
there  and  depend  for  the  rest  on  your  wit  and  faculty  of 
drollery.  Men  laugh  with  you  or  at  you,  but,  after  all, 
life  is  a  serious  affair,  and  when  the  play  is  over  the  clown 
»s  tlie  first  to  be  forgotten. 

Ingersoll — "Not  satisfied  with  having  slavery  in  this 
world,  Mr.  Black  assures  us  that  it  will  last  through 
eternity." 

Comment — There  is  but  one  reply  to  this.  It  consists 
of  a  vigorous  English  word  of  three  letters.     It  is  suffi- 


SUPERIORITY.  97 

cient  to  say  that  Mr.  Black  never  assured  us  of  anything 
from  which  such  an  inference  could  be  drawn.  On  what 
principle  of  moral  rectitude  do  you  justify  this  gross  mis- 
representation !  Certainly  not  on  that  divine  law  which 
forbids  you  to  bear  false  witness  against  your  neighbor. 
If  you  had  said  the  above  under  oath  would  it  not  have 
been  perjury?  Did  you  say  it  in  view  of  the  fact  that 
you  had  made  arrangements  to  prevent  your  opponent  from 
replying  to  you  ? 

Ingersoll — "And  that  forever  and  forever  inferiors 
must  be  subordinate  to  superiors. 

Comment — This  Mr.  Black  did  say,  but  it  is  very  dif- 
ferent from  the  assurance  you  attribu!-.  d  to  him  just  now. 
To  say  inferiors  must  always  be  subordinate  to  superiors, 
is  simply  to  say  that  the  inferior  must  always  be  inferipr 
to  the  superior,  which  is  a  self-evident  truth.  You  should 
not  need  to  be  told  that  to  be  subordinate  does  not  mean 
to  be  enslaved.  The  soldier  is  subordinate  to  his  superior 
officer,  but  he  io  n  his  slave.  To  say  that  your  intel- 
lect is  suborr'inat  or  inf  rior  to  that  of  Moses,  St.  Paul, 
Napoleon,  Newton,  or  Milton  is  not  to  make  a  slave  of 
you. 

Ingersoll — **Who  is  the  superior  man  ?" 

Comment — He  who  does  not  lie,  or  misrepresent,  or 
blaspheme  his  Maker,  is  morally  superior  to  him  who 
does. 

Ingersoll — ''According  to  Mr.  Black,  he  is  superior 
who  lives  on  the  unpaid  labor  )f  the  inferior." 

Comment — Here  you  are  again  disregarding  that  law 
which  requires  us  to  make  our  words  correspond  to  the 
truth.     It  is  not  at  all  pleasant  to  be  constantly  impeaching 


98  NOTES    ON    INGERSOLL. 

your  veracity,  but  your  wanton  use  of  language  makes  it 
necessary.     Your  opponent  said  nothing  of  the  kind. 

Ingersoll — "  With  me,  the  superior  man  is  one  who 
uses  his  superiority  in  bettering  the  condition  of  the  in- 
ferior." 

Comment — Here  you  admit  ihQ  fad  of  inferiority  and 
superiority,  and  therefore  subordination.  The  man  who 
uses  his  superiority  must  be  superior  prior  to  us  use. 
According  to  your  own  words,  the  superiority  is  a  fact 
prior  to  the  use  of  it.  Therefore,  his  superiority  does 
not  depend  on  the  use  of  it.  Now,  as  the  use  of  it  in 
bettering  the  condition  of  the  inferior  is  subsequent  to 
the  superiority,  it  cannot  be  the  note  or  criterion  by  which 
superiority  is  affirmed.  To  do  good  to  others  is  a  sign 
of  moral  superiority,  but  not  the  reason  of  it.  If  to  do 
good  were  the  reason  of  superiority,  all  men  could  be 
superior  by  a  mere  act  of  the  will,  but  superiority  is  a  fact 
prior  to  the  act  of  the  will,  and  therefore,  independent  of 
it.  This  definition,  then,  like  most  of  your  definitions, 
means  nothing  when  analyzed. 

Ingersoll — "The  superior  man  is  strength  for  the 
weak." 

Comment — Then  he  is  superior  because  he  is  stronger, 
and  he  is  good  because  he  uses  that  strength  to  assist  the 
weak.  Here  again  the  superiority  is  prior  to  the  use  of 
it,  and,  therefore,  the  use  of  it  is  not  the  criterion  of  it. 
You  confound  superiority  with  goodness.  The  ability  to 
help  the  weak  constitutes  superiority;  the  actual  helping 
of  the  weak  constitutes  goodness. 

Ingersoll — The  superior  man  "  is  eyes  for  the  blind." 

ComI^ent — His  superiority  does  not  consist  in  seeing 


SLAVERY.  99 

for  the  blind,  but  in  \\\s  abiitty  to  see.  His  disposition  to 
see  for  the  blind  is  evidence  of  his  goodness.  I  note  these 
small  points  to  show  that  you  are  not  an  adept  in  the 
proper  use  of  words,  and  that  your  definitions  are  un- 
trustworthy. 

Ingersoll— '*  For  my  part,  I  would  rather  be  the  slave 
than  the  master." 

Comment — For  my  part,  I  would  rather  be  the  master 
than  the  slave;  for  being  the  master,  I  would  have  it  in 
my  power  to  free  the  slave  and  cease  to  be  the  master. 
He  who  prefers  weakness  to  strength,  or  inability  to 
ability,  when  he  has  the  choice,  is  an  intellectual  imbecile 
or  a  consummate  hypocrite.  He  who  prefers  to  be  a 
slave  has  the  instincts  of  a  slave.  It  is  more  manly  to 
will  to  be  tlie  master  with  the  power  of  manumission,  that, 
by  a  voluntary  act  of  the  will,  one  may  reach  the  helping 
hand  to  the  lowly  and  unfortunate  and  raise  them  to 
freedom  and  equality.  Perhaps,  in  view  of  the  proneness 
of  man  to  domineer  and  play  the  tyrant,  it  were  better  to 
be  neither  the  slave  nor  the  master. 

Ingersoll — *'  Any  man  who  helps  another  to  gain  and 
retain  his  liberty  is.  superior  to  any  infallible  God  who 
authorized  slavery  in  Judea." 

Comment — Then  why  do  you  not  advocate  the  throw- 
ing open  of  our  prison-doors  that  the  murderers  and 
thieves  cruelly  shut  up  there  may  gain  and  retain  the 
liberty  they  sigh  for?  Ah!  that  would  be  dangerous. 
Well  then,  it  is  not  always  right  to  help  others  gain  and 
retain  their  liberty.  It  is  hard  for  you  to  say  anything 
without  saying  too  much  or  too  little.  You  are  fond  of 
making  general  propositions,  but  they  are  dangerous  tools 
and  should  be  handled  with  care. 


TOO  NOTES    ON    INGERSOLL. 

Ingersoll — "According  to  Mr.  Black,  there  will  be 
slavery  in  heaven." 

Comment — I  must  again  call  your  attention  to  that 
divine  law  which  puts  a  discount  on  false  witnesses. 
Your  opponent  never  said  anything  that  justifies  your 
statement.  Whatever  else  you  may  be  you  are  certainly 
not  a  Christian. 

Ingersoll — "If  some  good  republican  would  catch 
Mr.  Black,  'incorporate  liim  into  his  family,  tame  him, 
teach  him  to  think,  and  give  him  a  knowledge  of  the 
true  principles  of  human  liberty  and  government,  he  would 
confer  on  him  a  beneficent  boon," 

Comment — Why  did  you  not  catch  him  and  teach  him 
when  you  had  a  chance?  Your  opponent  could  retort 
thus:  If  some  good  Christian  would  catch  Mr.  Ingersoll, 
teach  him  to  think  a  little  deeper  than  the  surface,  give 
him  a  knowledge  of  the  true  principles  of  pjobity,  im- 
part to  him  a  proper  sense  of  the  importance  of  veracity, 
and  induce  him  to  forego  buffoonery  when  dealing  with 
great  questions,  he  vn^ouM  confer  on  him  a  most  beneficent 
boon. 

Ingersoll — "Slavery  includes  all  other  crimes.  It 
is  the  joint  product  of  the  kidnapper,  pirate,  thief,  mur- 
derer, and  hypocrite." 

Comment — How  does  it  include  all  other  crimes  if  it 
be  the  joint  product  of  them?  A  product  is  an  effect. 
If  slavery  be  a  product  of-crimes  it  cannot  include  those 
crimes;  for  to  include  them  it  must  exist  prior  to  fhem, 
and  if  it  exist,  prior  to  them,  it  cannot  be  a  product  of 
them.  You  should  not  contradict  yourself.  It  shows 
that  you  have  a  bad  memory,  or  that  there  is  a  screw 
loose  in  your  logical  machine. 


THE    COLONEL  S   MISREPRESENTATIONS.  lOI 

Ingersoll — "  To  lacerate  the  naked  back,  to  sell  wives, 
to  steal  babes,  to^breed  blood-hounds,  to  debauch  your 
own  soul — this  is  slavery." 

CoMMENr — No,  it  is  poetry,  poor  poetry  of  course, 
but  nevertheless  poetry,  for  it  is  a  product  of  the  im- 
agination. You  do  not  seem  to  understand  the  meaning 
of  the  word.  Consult  Webster's  Dictionary,  or  your  law 
books,  or  any  books  that  pretend  to  give  definitions  of 
things,  and  you  will  find  that  the  definition  of  slavery 
given  by  you  is  not  found  in  any  of  them.  You  may  find 
something  like  it  in  the  frothy  ravings  of  lunatics,  or  the 
rhapsodies  of  poets,  but  when  pure  reason  is  appealed  to 
we  must  not  quote  the  moutiiings  of  lunatics  and  poets. 
To  lacerate  the  naked  back  is  a  cruelty  or  a  punishment 
incident  to,  but  not  confined  to  the  condition  of  slavery. 
To  sell  wives  is  a  practice  common  to  human  society  in 
all  its  stages,  and  not  peculiar  to  slavery.  To  breed 
blood-hounds  is  no  more  wrong  than  to  breed  canary 
birds  or  poodles,  and  as  to  debauching  your  soul,  that  is 
done  with  facility  where  slavery  is  unknown  except  in 
name.  Then  slavery  is  none  of  these,  although  all  of 
them  may  be  incident  to  that  abnormal  relation  between 
labor  and  capital. 


CHAPTER  XIL 

LIBERTY — POLYGAMY — ROUSSEAU's   OPINION     OF    INFIDEL 
PHILOSOPHERS. 

INGERSOLL— ''With  me,  liberty  is  not  merely  a 
means — it  is  an  end." 

Comment — This  is  too  vague.  We  are  all  in  favor  of 
liberty,  as  we  understand  it,  but  we  do  not  agree  as  to 
what  it  is  or  ought  to  be.  It  is  a  foolish  loss  of  time  to 
caw  over  the  word  until  we  have  a  common  idea  or  un- 
derstanding of  the  thing.  Do  you  mean  by  the  word,  the 
liberty  Guiteau  exercised,  or  that  of  the  Nihilists,  or  that 
of  the  Mormons,  or  that  of  the  thief,  the  robber  or  the 
murderer?  All  these  appeal  to  liberty  as  vociferously  as 
you  do.  Do  you  not  see  that  this  word  "liberty"  must 
be  defined  and  limited — in  other  words,  that  it  must  be- 
come a  known  quantity  before  it  can  become  a  legitimate 
object  of  debate.  If  there  is  anything  thoroughly  detes- 
ted and  abhorred  by  logicians  it  is  a  word,  or  the  use  of 
a  word,  that  has  no  fixed,  clear  and  clean-cut  meaning  to 
it.  You  use  the  word  "liberty"  with  what  Shakespeare 
would  call  "  damnable  iteration,"  and  in  all  your  multi- 
farious uses  of  it  you  have  never,  so  far  as  I  have  seen, 
given  a  definition  of  it. 

Ingersoll — "  Without  that  word  all  other  words  are 
empty   sounds." 

Comment — And  that  word  without  a  definition — a  clear 

102 


LIBERTY.  103 

and  fixed  meaning,  intelligible  and  comprehensible  to  all 
in  common,  is  the  emptiest  and  most  misleading  sound 
that  ever  echoed  in  time  and  space.  It  is  a  pet  word  of 
lunatics,  fools  and  philosophers  so-called.  It  is  like  a 
piece  of  gum  elastic,  short  or  long,  at  the  will  of  him  who 
fingers  ir.  "Oh,  liberty!"  said  Madame  Roland,  as  she 
was  carted  to  the  guillotine,  "what  crimes  are  committed 
in  thy  name!"  The  Christian  loves  liberty  as  dearly  as 
you  do.  He  would  soar  from  planet  to  planet,  and  from 
star  tb  star,  and  drink  in  the  immensity  of  the  universe. 
He  would  dive  into  the  centre  of  our  world  and  know  its 
secrets.  He  would  penetrate  to  the  ultimate  molecule  of 
matter  and  know  its  essence.  ^He  would  introvert  him- 
self and  know  the  mystery  of  his  own  being,  but  the  lib- 
erty to  do  these  things  evades  his  grasp  as  the  ever- reced- 
ing rainbow  eludes  the  grasp  of  the  innocent  child  who 
hopes  to  bathe  his  dimpled  fingers  in  its  rays  by  crossing 
over  a  field  or  two.  Tlie  physical  and  the  moral  law  stand 
watch  on  the  limits  of  liberty  and  cry  "  halt"  when  we 
even  think  to  go  beyond  our  sphere. 

As  there  are  fixed  laws  of  matter,  so  there  are  fixed 
laws  of  mind.  The  intellect  is  governed  in  its  movements 
by  the  laws  of  its  action,  and  when  it  acts  in  defiance  of 
those  laws,  experts  call  it  insanity.  Besides  the  physical 
and  the  intellectual,  there  is  a  moral  world.  Man  is  the 
link  between  these  three  worlds  because  he  partakes  of  the 
nature  of  all  of  ihem,  and  he  is  the  only  being  who  does. 
As  a  physical  being  man  is  subject  to  the  laws  of  physi- 
cal nature,  as  an  intellectual  being  he  is  subject  to  the 
laws  of  mind,  as  a  moral  being  he  is  governed  by  the  in- 
flexible laws  of  morals,  and  if  he  acts  in  defiance  of  these 


104 


NOTES    ON    INGERSOLL. 


laws  theologians  call  it  sin.  Sin,  in  the  moral  world,  is 
what  insanity  is  in  the  intellectual  world — a  departure 
from  normal  action.  There  are  then  three  laws  that  act 
in  parallels  on  man — the  physical,  the  intellectual  and  the 
moral,  and  all  are  equally  binding.  The  two  former  bind 
him  in  such  a  way  that  he  has  no  liberty  whatever,  and  there- 
fore he  is,  in  no  way,  responsible  for  their  results.  The 
moral  law  remains,  and  it  is  to  this  law  alone  that  every 
sane  individual  is  responsible,  for  it  is  through  and  by  this 
law,  only,  that  he  can  possibly  antagonize  God's  will  as  in- 
tellect against  intellect.  Man,  then,  is  no  more  free  in  the 
moral  order  than  he  is  in  the  physical  or  intellectual  order. 
The  difference  is  only  thi|:  he  has  it  in  his  power  to  con- 
fuse the  moral  order,  to  make  discord.  To  do  this  is  to 
antagonize  God's  will,  and  to  do  this  is  to  sin,  and  in  this 
consists  moral  evil.  • 

Ingersoll — "We  are  informed  by  Mr.  Black  that 
polygamy  is  neither  commanded  nor  prohibited  in  the 
Old  Testament — that  it  is  only  discouraged.  It  seems  to 
me  a  little  legislation  on  that  subject  might  have  tended 
to  its  discouragement.     But  where  is  tins  legislation?" 

Comment — In  your  first  article  on  the  Christian  re- 
ligion you  said  that  the  Bible  upheld  polygamy  as  the 
highest  form  of  virtue.  Your  opponent  met  your  as- 
sertion with  a  denial  that  the  Bible  so  held  or  taught. 
Here  a  di/ect  issue  was  made,  a  question  of  veracity 
raised.  And  how  did  you  meet  it?  Did  you  stand  by 
your  statement  and  proceed  to  prove  it?  Not  at  all;  you 
reply  by  saying  that  the  Bible  did  not  legislate  against  it. 
This  is  an  admission  that  your  statement  could  not  be 
sustained — a  raising  of  the  white  flag. 


POLYGAMY.  105 

Ingersoll — "  In  the  moral  code  (of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment) not  one  word  is  found  on  the  subject  of  polygamy." 

Comment — Then  why  did  you  say  that  the  Bible 
tauglu  polygamy  as  the  highest  form  of  virtue?  If  you 
look  in  Genesis,  Chap.  II.,  verse  24,  you  will  find  the  fol- 
lowing words:  "  Therefore  shall  a  man  leave  his  father 
and  his  mother,  and  shall  cleave  unto  his  zcv/^,  (not  wives), 
and  they  shall  be  fwo  in  ofitr  flesli."  This  is  the  law  in 
the  case,  is  it  not  against  polygamy?  This  one  text  is 
sufficient  to  upset  all  your  talk  about  the  Bible  teaching 
polygamy. 

But  on  what  principle  do  you  condemn  polygamy? 
Christians  say  and  believe  it  is  wrong  because  God  has 
forbidden  it.  But  by  what  right  do  you  say  it  is  wrong? 
You  ignore  God  and  teach  *'  if  there  is  anything  of  value 
it  is  liberty.  Liberty  is  th^  air  of  the  soul,  the  sunshine 
of  life;  without  it  the  world  is  a  prison  and  the  universe 
an  infinite  dungeon.  Liberty  is  not  only  a  means — it  is 
an  end.  Without  that  word,  all  other  words  are  empty 
sounds."  Now,  in  the  light  of  this  doctrine  of  liberty, 
how  do  you  dare  to  obtrude  yourself  and  your  notions 
between  any  man  and  woman?  By  what  right  do  you 
limit  a  yoman  in  her  selection  of  a  man,  even  though  that 
man  be  the  husband  of  other  wives?  If  liberty  is  what 
you  say  it  is,  why  do  you  persist  in  playing  Paul  Pry, 
and  inserting  your  nose  into  other  people's  business? 
Deny  God  and  assert  unlimited  liberty,  and  where  is  the 
wrong  in  polygamy?  Why  should  not  a  man  have  all  the 
wives  he  wants,  if  there  is  no  God  to  forbid  it,  and  no 
woman  to  refuse?  If  man  is  only  an  animal  destined  to 
perish  like  the  beasts  of  the  forest,  why  should  he  not 


lo6  NOTES    ON    INGERSOLL. 

follow  his  instincts  as  they  do?  You  rob  him  of  every 
reason  of  self-denial,  rob  him  of  his  immortal  soul  and 
his  God,  reduce  him  to  the  level  of  the  beast,  and  then 
try  to  j];overn  him  by  frothy  sentimentalism!  Eliminate 
Christian  teaching  and  divine  revelation  from  human 
tliought,  and  where  is  the  wrong  in  polygamy?  Find  a 
principle  outside  of  revelation  that  forbids  it.  There  is 
none.  Take  God  away,  and  his  moral  law,  and  there  is 
no  reason  left  why  we  should  not  exercise  every  passion 
and  faculty,  we  possess,  to  their  fullest  extent.  If  men  do 
not  use  this  unlimited  liberty  which  you  preach,  it  is  be- 
cause God's  Moral  Code  permeates  Christian  thought, 
and  makes  a  healthy  public  opinion  which  governs  even 
those  who  deny  tiiat  code.  It  is  this  healtiiy  Christian 
sentiment  you  appeal  to  when  you  condemn  polygamy. 
You  steal  the  weapons  of  Christians  to  combat  that  which 
cannot  be  combatted  by  your  infidel  principles. 

Ingersoll — "All  languages  of  the  world  are  not  suffi- 
cient to  express  the  filth  of  polygamy." 

Comment — Until  you  produce  argument  for  this  state- 
ment, your  opinion  is  no  better  than  that  of  the  Mormon, 
the  Turk,  or  the  Hindoo.  In  fact  the  opinion  of  these  is 
preferable,  since  they  have  had  experience.  Your,  idea 
is  derived  from  Christian  teaching,  by  which  you  are  un- 
consciously influenced.  In  opposing  polygamy  from  an 
infidel  point  of  view  you  have  no  right  to  make  use  of 
that  popular  sentiment  or  judgment  which  is  the  result 
of  a  religion  you  repudiate.  Having  rejected  the  Chris- 
tian religion  you  cannot  consistently  or  logically  make  use 
of  its  weapons  in  opposing  polygamy.  You  cannot  ap- 
propriate the  triumphs  of  Christianity  as  victories  of  in- 


LYING    SPIRltS    AND    FALSE    PROPHETS.  IO7 

fidelity,  or  unenlightened  human  reason.  If  Christians 
are  disposed  to  accept  your  statement  it  is  on  account  of 
their  convictions,  founded  on  Christian  teaching,  and  not 
because  of  any  argument  you  have  or  can  produce,  from 
an  infidel  point  of  view,  against  polygamy. 

Ingersoll — "It  (polygamy)  makes  man  a  beast  and 
woman  a  slave." 

Comment — Here  again  you  appeal  to  a  sentiment  or 
public  opinion  which  is  produced  by  and  founded  on 
Christian  principles  which  you  reject.  This  is  illogical. 
Your  infidel  position  requires  you,  in  opposing  polygamy, 
to  use  arguments  that  would  convince  a  Turk  or  a  Mor- 
mon. But  polygamy  makes  a  man  a  beast,  you  say. 
Then  it  is  as  bad  but  no  worse  than  your  modern  infidel 
philosophy.  This  philosophy  makes  man  a  beast  by  deny- 
ing the  immortality  of  his  soul  and  asserting  that  he  is 
evolved  from  the  monkey  or  protoplasm.  If  he  is  a  de- 
scendant of  the  monkey  or  the  goat  where  is  the  impro- 
priety of  his  imitating  the  propensities  of  his  ancestors? 
You  tell  him  there  is  nothing  above  or  beyond  him, 
neither  a  God  nor  a  future.  Why  then  should  he  aspire 
when  there  is  no  object  worthy  of  his  aspirations?  You 
point  to  the  oyster  or  to  the  libidinous  ourang-outang  as 
his  origin,  and  tell  him  his  future  is  a  blank.  Why,  then, 
should  he  curb  his  passions  or  limit  his  impulses?  Is  it 
worth  the  effort?  You  make  man  a  beast  when  you  make 
his  origin  and  destiny  the  same  as  that  of  the  beast. 
Polygamy  can  do  no  more  than  this.  And  if  man  is  a 
beast,  and  there  is  no  future,  what  is  to  prevent  him  from 
following  the  instincts  of  his  animal  nature?  Reason? 
Reason  must  forbid  polygamy  if  it  can  be  shown    that 


jo8  NOTES   ON    INGERSOLL. 

there  is  anything  in  it  contrary  to  the  first  principles  of 
nature.  By  first  principles  of  nature  I  mean  the  object, 
end,  and  purpose  of  marriage,  the  continuance  of  human 
life  on  earth,  etc.  Does  polygamy  antagonize  any  of  these 
objects?  When  you  prove  it  does,  you  will  have  proved 
that  it  is  contrary  to  reason — not  till  then. 

Ingersoll — "Certainly,  Jehovah  had  time  to  instruct 
Moses  as  to  the  infamy  of  polygamy." 

CoM^fENT — There  is  no  sense  in  this,  except  on  the  as- 
sumption that  you  know  more  about  the  subject  than 
Jehovah — that  your  crude  notions  of  virtue  and  propriety 
should  govern  his  actions. 

Rousseau,  an  infidel  like  yourself,  but  an  honester  and 
abler  man,  has  given  a  description  of  the  class  of  philos- 
ophers to  which  you  belong,  and  it  is  highly  worthy  of 
attention  just  here.     He  says: 

"  I  have  consulted  our  philosophers,  I  have  perused 
their  books,  I  have  examined  their  several  opinions,  I 
have  found  them  all  proud,  positive  and  dogmatizing  even 
in  their  pretended  scepticism,  knowing  everything^  prov- 
ince nothing,  and  ridiculing  one  another,  and  this  is  the 
only  point  in  which  they  concur,  and  in  which  they  are 
right.  Daring  when  they  attack,  they  defend  themselves 
without  vigor.  If  you  consider  their  arguments,  they 
have  none  but  for  destruction.  Where  is  the  philosopher 
who,  for  his  own  glory,  would  not  willingly  deceive  the 
whole  human  race  ?  Where  is  he  who,  in  the  secret  of 
his  heart,  proposes  any  other  object  than  his  own  distinc- 
tion? Provided  he  can  raise  himself  above  the  com- 
monalty, provided  he  can  eclipse  his  competitors,  he  has 
reached  the  summit  of  his  ambition.     The  great  thing  for 


INFIDEL    PHILOSOPHERS.  lOp 

him  is  to  think  differently  from  other  people.  Among 
believers  he  is  an  atheist,  among  atheists  he  is  a  believer. 
Shun,  shun,  then,  those  wiio,  under  preiense  of  explain- 
ing nature,  sow  in  the  hearts  of  men  the  most  dispiriting 
doctrines,  whose  scepticism  is  far  more  affirmative  and  dog- 
matical than  the  decided  tone  of  their  adversaries.  Under 
pretense  of  being  themselves  the  only  people  enlightened,  they 
imperiously  subject  us  to  their  magisterial  decisions,  and 
would  fain  palm  upon  us,  for  the  true  causes  of  things^  the 
unintelligible  systems  they  have  erected  in  their  own  heads; 
whilst  they  overturn,  destroy  and  trample  under  foot  all 
that  mankind  reveres,  snatch  from  the  afflicted  the  only 
comfort  left  them  in  their  misery,  from  the  rich  and  great 
the  only  curb  that  can  restrain  their  passions;  tear  from 
the  heart  all  remorse  of  vice,  all  hopes  of  virtue;  they 
still  boast  themselves  benefactors  of  mankind.  'Truth,' 
they  say,  'is  never  hurtful  to  man,' — I  believe  that  as  well 
as  they,  a?id  the  same,  in  my  opinion,  is  proof  that  what  they 
teach  is  not  the  truth." — Rousseau,  as  quoted  by  Gandolphy 
in  his  defence  of  the  Ancient  Faith. 

This  quotation  is  somewhat  long,  but  it  is  so  true,  so 
apt  to  the  present  occasion,  that  I  have  given  it  place 
here.  You  infidels  have  not  changed  much  since  Rous- 
seau's time,  and  his  description  fits  you  so  perfectly  that 
one  might  imagine  he  liad  you  in  his  mind's  eye  when  he 
penned  the  above  eloquent  and  truthful  passage. 


CHAPTER  XIII. 

woman's    rights — MOTHERHOOD WOMAN's    CONDITION 

AMONG  JEWS  AND  PAGANS — SOME  OF  MR.  INGERSOLl's 
MISSTATEMENTS,     ETC 

INGERSOLL— "  Where  will  we  find,  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, t'ne  rights  of  wife,  mother  and  daughter  de- 
fined ? ' 

Comment — They  are  found  in  the  warp  and  woof  of 
the  whole  book.  But,  before  particularizing,  it  is  nec- 
essary to  know  what  you  mean  by  these  "  rigiits"  and  if 
your  notions  on  the  subject  are  correct.  What  you  may 
affirm  as  "  rights''  I  may  deny.  Until  these  rights  are 
determined  rigluly  and  independently  of  your  or  my  sen- 
timents or  feelings,  the  question  as  to  what  the  Bible 
says  on  the  subject  cannot  be  intelligently  discussed. 

Ingersoll — "Even  in  the  New  Testament  she  (woman) 
is  told  to  'learn  in  silence  and  all  subjection.'" 

COxMMENT — Most  excellent  advice  for  man,  woman 
and  child.  How  can  you  learn  otherwise?  Would  you 
have  the  learner  pjrt  and  impertinent  ? 

According  to  the  Christian  idea,  the  husband  and  wife 
are  two  in  one  flesh.  They  are  united  by  an  intimate 
and  mutual  love  in  God,  and  ^should  edify  each  other  in 
peace,  in  fidelity,  and  mutual  support.  The  husband  is 
the  head  of  the  wife,  wh©m  he  should  love,  esteem,  and 
iio 


WOMAN  S    RIGHTS.  Ill 

respect  as  himself,  and  protect.  The  wife  is,  within  the 
circle  of  her  duties,  at  the  side  of  the  man,  not  subject 
to  liim  as  the  child  is  to  its  fatiier,  or  as  the  slave  to  the 
master,  but  as  the  mother,  side  by  side  with  the  father, 
having,  no  less  than  he,  sacred  and  imprescriptable 
rights.  But  as  in  every  company  or  corporation  it  is 
necessary  that  some  hold  superior  rank  and  authority 
that  order  and  peace  may  prevail,  so  in  that  association 
of  man  and  woman  called  marriage,  in  which  the  parties 
are  bound  one  to  the  other,  there  must  be  a  superior, 
while  each,  according  to  rank,  has  necessities,  duties  and 
rights.  The  woman  thus  raised  above  that  condition  ©f 
absolute  subjection  and  low  esteem  which  she  occupies 
outside  of  Christendom,  takes  honorable  and  imposing 
rank  by  the  side  of  her  husband.  Nevertheless,  she  is, 
in  certain  respects,  subject  to  his  authority.  She  should, 
according  to  Christian  law,  obey  her  husband  as  a  su- 
perior, not  as  if  in  slavery,  but  freely,  in  the  same  way 
that  the  Church  obeys  Christ,  her  head.  A  loving,  pious, 
moral,  interior,  laborious  life  is  the  glory  of  the  woman. 
The  duties  of  the  husband  are  described  by  St.  Paul: 
"But  yet  neither  is  the  man  without  the  woman:  nor 
the  woman  without  the  man  in  the  Lord.  For  as  the 
woman  is  of  the  man,  so  also  is  the  man  by  the  woman: 
but  all  things  of  God."  (I.  Cor.  ii,  12.)  Again:  "Hus- 
bands, love  your  wives,  as  Christ  also  loved  the  Church, 
and  delivered  himself  up.  for  it.  *  *  So  also  ought 
men  to  love  their  wives  as  their  own  bodies.  He  that 
loveth  his  wife  loveth  himself.  For  no  man  ever  hateth 
his  own  flesh:  but  nourisheth  and  cherisheth  it,  as  also 
Christ    doth  the  Church.     Because  we    are  members   of 


1I2  ,^NOTES   ON    INGERSOLL. 

his  body,  of  his  flesh,  and  of  his  bones.  For  this  cause 
shall  a  man  leave  his  father  and  mother,  and  shall  cleave 
to  his  wife,  and  they  shall  be  two  in  one  flesh.  *  * 
Nevertlieless,  let  every  one  of  you  in  particular  love  his 
wife  as  himself."  (Ephesians  v.  25  to  33.)  These  are  the 
doctrines  that  have  liberated  woman. 

Ingersoll — ''According  to  the  Old  Testament,  woman 
had  to  ask  pardon,  and  had  to  be  purified  for  the  crime 
of  having  borne  sons  and  daughters." 

Comment — No  race  on  earth  ever  held  motherhood 
in  higher  esteem  than  the  Jewish  race.  This  you  must 
have  known  unless  you  are  utterly  ignorant  of  the  his- 
tory of  that  remarkable  people  as  it  is  recorded  in  the 
Bible.  Motherhood  was  the  glory  of  the  matrons  of 
Israel,  and  the  childless  wife  mourned  her  unhappy  fate, 
and  wept,  and  prayed  the  God  of  Abraham  to  take  away 
her  reproach.  Read  the  Canticle  of  Anna  at  the  birth 
of  her  son  Samuel  (Samuel,  ii.),  and  you  will  learn  what 
you  seem  not  to  know,  that  to  become  a  mother  in  Tudea 
gave  occasion  for  thanksgiving  and  rejoicing,  and  to 
be  childless  was  considered  an  affliction  and  a  judgment 
of  an  angry  God.  When  the  mother  of  Samuel  came  to 
offer  the  sacrifice  of  purification  she  placed  him  in  the 
hands  of  Heli,  the  high-priest,  and  said:  "  For  this  child 
did  I  pray,  and  the  Lord  hath  granted  me  my  petition, 
which  I  asked  of  him.  Therefore  I  also  have  lent  him  to 
the  Lord.  And  they  adored  the  Lord  there.  And  Anna 
prayed ^and  said:    My  heart  hath  rejoiced   in   the  Lord. 

*  *  There  is  none  holy  as  the  Lord  is,  for  there  is 
none  other  beside  thee,  and  there  is  none  strong  like  our 
God." 


woman's  condition  among  jews  and  pagans.  113 

Here  is  a  subject  for  a  painter.  These  sweet,  joyful, 
grateful  words  come  from  a  happy  mother's  heart.  Does 
she  ask  pardon  for  having  borne  a  son  ?  Is  there  any- 
thing here  to  suggest  that  she  had  been  guilty  of  a  crime  ? 
Compare  this  prayer  of  an  Israelite  mother  with  your 
untruthful  words,  and  how  coarse  and  vulgar  you  appear 
in  her  sacred  presence.  You  taint  the  atmosphere  of 
sacredness  and  mystery  with  which  God  has  surrounded 
motherhood. 

Ingersoll — "According  to  the  Old  Testament, 
woman  had  to  ask  pardon  for  the  crime  of  having  borne 
sons  and   daughters." 

Comment — This  is  an  untruth.  I  leave  you  to  say 
whether  it  was  intentional,  or  made  through  ignorance. 
Ingersoll — But  *'  woman  had  to  be  purified." 
Comment — Yes,  but  this  purification  had  no  reference 
to  crime  or  guilt.  There  were  many  purifications  required 
in  the  Jewish  ritual.  To  be  ritually  unclean  was  no 
crime  or  disgrace.  A  physician  who  touched  his  patient, 
for  instance,  to  count  his  pulse,  became  unclean  by  that 
act.  (Lev.  xv.  7.)  He  who  performed  the  charitable  act 
of  burying  a  dead  body  became  unclean,  as  did  he  also 
who  served  in  some  of  the  sacred  offices.  When,  there- 
fore, you  imagine  that  **  unclean"  means  guilt  or  crime, 
and  talk  about  the  crime  of  bearing  sons  and  daughters, 
you  simply  show  your  ignorance  of  what  you  so  flip- 
pantly talk  about.     Pope  was  right  when  he  said: 

A  little  learning  is  a  dangerous  thing." 

Ingersoll — "  The  doctrine   that  womin  is  the  slave, 
or  serf,  of  man — is  savagery,  pure  and  simple." 


114  NOTES    ON    INGERSOLL. 

Comment — No,  it  is  not  savagery;  it  is  a  false  doctrine, 
pure  and  simple.  But,  as  neither  Jew  nor  Christian  be- 
lieves that  woman  is  a  slave  or  a  serf,  I  cannot  see  the 
purpose  of  your  remark. 

Ingersoll — "  In  no  country  in  the  world  had  woman 
less  liberty  than  in  the  Holy  Land." 

Comment — It  depends  on  what  you  mean  by  "  liberty." 
It  is  true,  women  in  Judea  had  not  the  liberty  to  do 
many  things  that  were  permitted  to  the  women  of  pagan 
nations,  just  as  virtuous  women  have  not  the  liberty  of 
the  depraved  and  fallen.  It  is  tliis  fact  that  gives  the 
laws  of  Moses  a  pre-eminence  over  the  laws  of  pagan 
nations.  The  honor  of  wives  and  tlie  modesty  of  daugh- 
ters were  protected  in  Judea.  The  women  of  Egypt, 
Chaldea,  Persia,  Greece,  etc.,  had  the  liberty  to  marry 
their  uncles,  brothers,  fathers,  and  even  mothers  were 
free  to  marry  their  own  sons.  How  cruel  in  Moses  to 
forbid  these  liberties  to  the  women  of  Judea!  Pagan 
women  had  the  liberty  to  sacrifice  their  virtue  at  the 
lewd  altars  of  Venus  and  Cybele.  A  description  of  the 
wickedness  and  impurity  the  worship  of  these  heathens 
involved  can  be  read  by  no  virtuous  Christian  without 
a  shudder.  Moses  forbade  these  abominations,  in  honor 
of  God  and  human  nature,  and  for  this  you  accuse  him 
of  taking  away  the  ''  rights"  of  women.  It  is  to  the 
honor  of  Hebrew  women  that  they  did  not  practise  such 
"liberties,"  and  to  Hebrew  legislation  that  they  were 
not  permitted.  If  you  had  read  and  studied  the  historians 
Herodotus  and  Strabo  in  reference  to  the  condition  of 
women  in  Babylon,  Lydia,  Thrace.  Armenia,  Medea, 
India,  Egypt    and  Greece,  you    would   have   less  to  say 


MISSTATEMENTS,    ETC.  II5 

about  their  '*  liberties."  I  refer  you  to  these  authors,  as 
it  would  not  be  proper  to  quote  their  descriptions  of 
life,  manners,  and  worship  in  those  countries,  in  a  book 
intended  for  modern  civilized  readers.  The  lives  of 
mother  and  child  were  protected  in  Judea.  In  those 
countries  I  have  mentioned  they  were  at  the  mercy  of 
the  husband  who  was  master.  This  was  also  the  case  in 
ancient  Rome. 

Ingersoll — "  The  position  of  woman  was  far  better  in 
Egypt  than  in  Palestine." 

Comment — This  is  one  of  those  bold,  reckless  state- 
ments which  characterize  all  your  lectures  and  writings. 
According  to  Strabo,  who  travelled  in  Egypt  before  the 
Christian  era,  women  were  the  toilers  and  tillers  of  the 
soil.  Their  condition  vv<is  somewhat  analogous  to  that 
of  the  squaws  among  the  Indians  of  our  western  territo- 
ries. 

Egypt  is  the  land  of  silence  and  of  mystery.  Its  origin, 
ancient  religion,  customs  and  laws  are  at  the  best  matters 
of  conjecture  to  the  hieroglyphic  archaeologist.  The 
stone-lipped  sphinx  is  its  true  symbol.  Beyond  the 
seventeenth  dynasty  of  Manetho,  when  Joseph  was  pre- 
mier of  the  land,  there  is  no  reliable  or  intelligible  his- 
tory. Egyptologists,  from  Clement  ef  Alexandria  down 
to  ChampoUion,  Young,  and  Wilkinson,  have  exhausted 
their  learning  and  genius  in  vain  to  unravel  the  mystery 
of  the  silent  valley  of  the  Nile,  to  make  the  footprints  of 
that  mysterious  people  tell  us  something  of  their  past — 
whence  they  came,  their  laws,  social  customs  and  habits. 
The  sphinx  smiles  a  rigid,  stony  smile,  the  sands  of  ages 
gather  about  the  bases  of  the  pyramids,  and  man  is  about 


Il6  NOTES   ON    INGERSOLL. 

to  give  up  the  mystery  in  despair,  when  suddenly  and 
unexpectedly  the  long-lost  light  breaks  fonli  in  all  its 
brilliancy — Ingersoll  speaks,  and  all  is  light.  "The 
position  of  woman  was  far  better  in  Egypt  than  in  Pales- 
tine," says  he.  But,  dear  sir,  how  or  wiiere  do  you  learn 
this?  The  history  of  Egypt  before  the  time  of  the 
Ptolemais  is  mere  conjecture.  The  writings  of  Hermes 
Trismegisius  are  apochryphal.  Manetho  is  fragmentary. 
You  have  then  nothing  left  but  the  Old  Testament,  Her- 
odotus and  Strabo,  and  the  two  last  only  echo  the  dying 
agonies,  the  death  sighs  of  a  once  powerful  people  as 
they  sunk  before  the  rising  glories  of  Greece  and  Rome. 
These  writers  only  record  the  last  act  in  the  drama  of 
old  Egypt.  But  what  they  do  record  contradicts  your 
statement. 

Ingersoll — "  Upon  ancient  tombs  husband  and  wife 
are  represented  as  seated  in  the  same  chair." 

Comment — This  is  of  no  consequence  whatever;  but 
I  quote  it  for  the  purpose  of  asking  you  how  you  know 
they  were  represented  as  hisband  and  wife  i 

Ingersoll — '*  In  Persia  women  were  priests." 

Comment — Yes,  but  a  woman-priest  meant  one  who, 
if  she  lived  in  New  York  at  the  present  day,  would  be 
sent  to  Blackwell's  Island. 

Ingersoll— *' At  the  advent  of  Christianity,  in  all 
pagan  countries,  women   officiated  at  the  sacred  altars." 

Comment — Yes.  Strabo  relates  that  there  was  a  tem- 
ple of  Venus  at  Corinth  so  rich  that  it  maintained  above 
a  thousand  harlots,  sacred  to  her  service.  That  is  the 
way  they  "  officiated."  It  was  high  time  for  the  advent 
of  Christianity — or  hell. 


MISSTATEMENTS.  Uy 

Ingersoll— "They  guarded  the  eternal  fire." 
Comment— And  they  will  probably  continue  to  do  so. 
Ingersoll— "From    their    lips    came  the    oracles    of 
fate." 

Comment— Just  as  they  continue  to  come  from  the 
lips  of  female  mediums  of  quesiionabie  reputation,  for- 
tune-tellers, gypsies,  etc. 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

MORE    ABOUT     V/OMEN — BIBLE     AND     KEVELATION — MORI 
MISREPRESENTATION. 

INGERSOLL— "Under  the  domination  of  the  Chris 
tian  Cluirch  woman   became   tlie  merest  slave  for  a 
least  a  thousand  years." 

Comment — This  is  loo  general  and  indefinite.  Genera 
statements  can  be  met  only  by  general  denials  and  a  cal 
for  proofs  and  specifications.  Christianity  found  womai 
in  the  pagan  world  at  man's  feet,  and  it  raised  her  u^ 
and  placed  her  at  his  side  as  a  companion,  where  she  be 
longs,  and  from  whence  she  came. 

Ingersoll — "  It  was  claimed  that  through  woman  the 
race  had  fallen." 

Comment — Claimed  by  whom  }  Christianity  does  not 
hold  that  the  race  fell  through  woman  or  the  disobe- 
dience of  Eve,  for  Eve  was  never  the  responsibleagent  of 
humanity,  as  Adam  was.  It  was  through  him,  as  St. 
Paul  informs  us,  that  the  race  fell.  **Byone  man,  sir. 
entered  into  the  world,  and  by  sin,  deat-l^." 

I  believe  your  father  was  a  Presbyterian,  and  he,  no 
doubt,  taught  you  the  Presbyterian  distich: 

"In  Adam's  fall 
We  sinned  all." 

There    is   no  mention  of   woman  here.     I    quote  this, 
ii8 


BIBLfi    AND    REVELATION.  II9 

not  to  adopt  its  doctrine,  but  to  show  that  you  were 
not  taught  that  the  race  fell  through  woman.  Eve  was 
the  occasion  not  the  cause  of  the  fall,  just  as  Mary  was 
the  occasion  or  instrument  of  man's  redemption.  Adam 
fell,  and  humanity  fell  with  and  by  him;  Christ  rose,  and 
humanity  rose  again  with  and  by  him.  This  is  the 
^Christian  doctrine  on  the  subject  in  a  nutshell. 

Ingersoll — "  And  that  her  loving  kiss  had  poisoned 
all  the  springs  of  life." 

CoMMLNT — Fudge. 

Ingersoll — "Will  Mr.  Black  have  the  kindness  to 
state  a  few  of  his  objections  to  the  devil." 

Comment — He  is  the  prince  of  liars,  full  of  sophistry 
and  deceit,  misleading  and  unreliable — a  purveyor  of 
Dead  Sea  apples. 

Ingersoll — "  Again  I  ask,  why  were  the  Jewish  peo- 
ple as  wicked,  cruel  and  ignorant,  with  a  revelation  from 
God,  as  other  nations  were  without?" 

Comment — This  question  is  based  on  a  false  hypothesis. 
I  deny  that  tlie  Jews  were  as  wicked,  cruel  and  ignorant 
as  other  nations  of  their  time.  They  were  angels  in  com- 
parison with  the  diseased,  rotten  and  pestiferous  races 
about  them. 

Ingersoll — **  Why  were  the  worshippers  of  false  deities 
as  brave,  as  kind,  and  generous  as  those  who  knew  the 
only  true  and  living  God?" 

Comment — Because  they  were  not.  If  the  Canaanites 
were  as  brave  as  the  Jews  why  did  they  permit  the  latter, 
hungry  and  exhausted  from  the  desert,  to  kick  them  out 
of  Palestine  at  the  toe  of  their  sandals? 

Ingersoll — ''Will  you  tell  me  why  God  failed  to  give 
the  Bible  to  the  whole  world?" 

Comment — God  did  not  fail  to  give  his  revelation  to 
the  whole  world.  In  the  beginning,  he  revealed  himself 
and  his  will  to  man,  who  afterwards  to  a  great  extent  for- 


I20  NOTES    ON    INGERSOLL. 

got  that  revelation.  Man  began  on  this  earth  with  a  true 
knowledge  of  the  true  God,  but  subsequently  fell  into 
idolatry.  The  wise  sayings  and  moral  precepts  of  the 
philosophers  in  the  remoter  ages  were  but  the  echoes  of 
that  original  divine  revelation.  The  nearer  we  approach 
to  the  origin  of  the  human  race  the  purer  we  find  both 
doctrine  and  morals.  This  has  been  demonstrated  by 
Thebaud  in  hfs  remarkable  work  on  Gentilism, 

God  then  gave  mankind  originally  a  revelation,  but 
man,  in  the  course  of  time,  failed  to  keep  it  in  his  memory 
and  fell  into  ignorance,  idolatry  and  barbarism.  He 
became  a  victim,  not  of  evolution,  but  of  devilution. 

Ingersoll — "If  Jeliovah  was  in  fact  God  he  knew 
the  end  from  the  beginning.  He  knew  that  his  Bible 
would  be  a  breastwork  behind  which  tyranny  and  hypoc- 
risy would  crouch." 

Comment— Granted.  What  then  ?  Because  he  knew 
that  his  revelation  would  be  abused,  misrepresented  and 
ridiculed  by  some,  must  he  therefore  refuse  it  to  the 
world  ?  Every  gift  of  God — food,  life,  health,  ability, 
reason,  are  abused  by  some.  Must  he  deny  to  man, 
groping  in  error,  the  light  of  revelation  because  he  knew 
the  hypocrite  would  deny  it  and  blaspheme  ? 

Ingersoll — God  knew  "  tliat  it  would  be  the  defence 
of  robbers  called  kings,  and  hypocrites  called  priests." 

CoMMENT^He  knew  that  it  would  be  misquoted  in 
defence  of  tyranny,  and  that  it  would  be  misrepresented 
by  hypocrites  called  infidels,  but  that  is  no  reason  why 
he  should  not  give  his  revelation  to  man. 

Ingersoll — "  He  knew  that  he  taught  the  Jewish 
people  but  little  of  importance." 


MISREPRESENTATION.  121 

.  Comment — You  only  imagine  that  you  know  this. 
You  must  not  confound  your  knowledge  with  that  of 
Jeliovah.  How  do  you  know  what  he  knew  ?  You  evi- 
dently do  not  need  to  pray  the  old  Scotch  dominie's 
prayer:  "O  Lord,  gie  us  a  gude  conceit  o'  oursel'." 

Ingersoll — "He  knew  that  he  found  them  free  and 
left  them  captives." 

Comment — He  knew  that  he  found  them  in  Egyptian 
slavery  and  made  them  a  powerful  nation. 

Ingersoll — "  He  knew  that  he  had  never  fufilled  the 
promises  made  to  them." 

Comment — He  knew  that  the  promises  made  to  tb.e 
Jews  were  expressly  and  distinctly  conditional  on  their 
obedience  to  his  commands  and  laws,  and  that  they  had 
disregarded  those  commands  and  broken  those  laws. 
They  disobeyed  him  and  in  cousequence  fell  again  into 
bondage — the  sceptre  passed  from  the  hands  of  Israel. 

Ingersoll — *'  I  here  take  occasion  to  thank  Mr. 
Black  for  having  admitted  that  Jehovah  gave  no  com- 
mandment against  the  practice  of  polygamy,  that  he 
established  slavery,  waged  wars  of  extermination,  and 
persecuted  for  opinion's  sake  even  unto  death." 

Comment — First.  You  must  have  been  in  a  very 
gushing  humor  when  you  so  formally  thanked  your 
opponent  for  admitting  what  no  Christian  ever  dreamt 
of  denying.  Your  opponent  said  tliat  "  if  you  were  a 
statesman  instead  of  a  mere  politician  you  would  see 
good  and  sufficient  reasons  for  the  forbearance  to  legis- 
late directly  on  this  subject  (polygamy),"  and  that  '*  it 
would  be  improper  for  him  to  set  them  forth"  in  an  article 
intended  for  the  general  reader.     Not  being  a  statesman, 


12  2  NOTES   ON    INGERSOLL. 

a  moralist,  or  a  physician,  you,  of  course,  do  not  see  thosq 
things  to  which  your  opponent  delicately  directs  you  at- 
tention^ 

Second.  When  you  say  Mr.  Black  admitted  that  Jehovah 
established  slavery,  you  say  what  is  not  true.  It  is  the 
height  of  unwisdom  to  make  a  statement  that  is  so  easily 
refuted.  Your  thanks  were  premature,  as  Mr.  Black 
never,  at  least  in  the  article  you  reply  to,  admitted  any- 
thing of  the  kind.  He  said:  "  Jehovah  perinitied  his 
chosen  people  to  hold  the  captives  they  took  in  war  or 
purchased  from  the  heathen  as  servants  for  life."  That 
is,  he  permitted  the  Jews  to  follow  the  customs  of  the 
times  in  this  matter.  Is  this  an  admission  that  Jehovah 
established  slavery?  Like  a  lawyer  more  *'  cute"  or  cun- 
ning than  able,  you  change  the  word  permitted  to  es- 
tablished. You  do  not  need  to  be  told  that  there  is  a 
difference  between  to  permit  and  to  establish.  It  is  very 
unbecoming  in  the  great  apostle  of  "  candor"  and  ''  honor 
bright"  to  thus  misrepresent  his  antagonist,  and  it  must 
bring  the  blush  of  shame  even  ioyour  cheek  to  be  caught 
in  such  petty  chicanery. 

Third.  To  exterminate,  from  ex  and  terminus,  means 
to  drive  from  the  border,  to  expel,  to  drive,. out.  This 
the  Jews  did  to  the  Canaanites,  just  as  we  are  exterminat- 
ing the  Indians  from  this  continent.  It  is  the  logic  of 
migration,  the  law  of  human  movement.  The  race  in  its 
movements  on  the  surface  of  the  earth  is  governed  by  laws 
of  social  dynamics  of  which  individuals  and  nations  are 
unconscious.  Some  gushing  philosopher  of  the  future 
will  condemn  us  of  the  nineteenth  century  as  bitterly  for 
exterminating  the   Indian,  as  you  condemn  the  Israelite 


MISREPRESENTATION.  I23 

for  dispossessing  the  Canaanite.  And  he  will  have  as 
much  influence  on  his  age  as  you  have  on  yours — and  no 
more. 

Fourth.  When  you  say  your  opponet  admitted  that 
Jehovah  persecuted  "  iox  opiniori  s  sake  even  unto  death," 
you  again  misrepresent  him.  God,  a*  God,  holds  his  in- 
telh'gent  creatures  responsible  for  every  thought,  but  God 
as  the  temporal  monarch  of  Judea  inflicted  punishment 
only  for  overt  acts.  There  is  no  punishment  mentioned 
in  the  Jewish  criminal  law  for  sins  of  thought,  or  mere 
opinions.  Therefore  it  is  not  true  to  say  that  God  pun- 
ished or  persecuted  for  opinion's  sake.  Crimes  cogniza- 
ble to  the  Jewish  criminal  code  were  acts  capable  of 
proof — subjects  of  evidence.  Thoui^hts  and  opinions,  un- 
less made  overt,  are  not  capable  of  being  evidenced  or 
proved.  Therefore  no  one  was  punislied  in  Judea  for 
opinion's  sake. 

Ingersoll — **  Most  theologians  endeavor  to  putty, 
patch  and  paint  the  wretched  record  of  inspired  crime, 
but  Mr,  Black  has  been  bold  enough  and  honest  enough 
to  admit  the  truth." 

Comment — Here  you  transfer  your  misrepresentations 
from  Mr.  Black  to  the  theologians;  and  Mr.  Black  will 
doubtless  appreciate  your  compliment  at  its  true  value 
when  he  reflects  that  the  admissions,  for  which  you  are 
so  anxious  to  credit  him  at  the  expense  of  the  theologians, 
were  never  made  by  him.  True,  your  opponent  has  been 
bold  enough  and  honest  enough  to  admit  the  truth,  but  he 
has  not  been  so  stupid  or  so  asinine  as  to  admit  what  you 
attribute  to  him,  while  you  have  not  been  true  enough  or 
honest  enough  to  correctly  state  what  he  does,  in  fact,  ad- 


124  NOTES    ON    INGERSOLL. 

mit.  Mr.  Black  is  evidently  not  a  theologian.  He  has 
made  some  admissions,  not  of  fact,  but  of  principle, 
which  he  should  not  have  made,  and  taken  certain  posi- 
tions which  he  cannot  hold  successfully;  and  singular  as 
it  may  seem  to  him  and  you,  those  positions  are  the  very 
ones  that  are  not  Christian.  One  instance  will  suffice. 
Mr.  Black  says  that  the  creation  was  a  miracle.  Theo- 
logians do  not  agree  with  him  in  this. 

Now  as  to  the  theologians,  at  wliom  you  take  your  fling 
over  Mr.  Black's  shoulders,  I  will  say  this  of  them:  If  they 
were  guilty  of  as  much  ])uttying  and  patching,  misrepre- 
sentation, low  trickery,  cunning,  deceit,  flattering  of 
popular  passions  and  errors,  as  you  have  perpetrated  in 
this  one  article  of  yours,  I  would  be  disposed  to  look  upon 
them  as  sharpers  of  the  meanest  order  who  were  inspired, 
not  by  the  genius  of  Christianity,  but  by  the  spirit  of  in- 
fidelity. 

You  deem  it  no  offence  against  decency  to  accuse  theo- 
logians of  intention  to  perpetrate  and  perpetuate  fraud,  to 
call  them  hypocrites,  etc.,  and  yet  if  they  turn  on  you  and 
call  you  a  speculator  who  turns  falsehood  into  dollars,  a 
fraud,  and  a  liar,  you  begin  to  whimper  about  the  Master 
who  tells  them  to  turn  the  other  cheek.  You  are  a  brave 
man.  You  challenge  to  mortal  combat,  and  on  the  field  you 
seriously  tell  your  antagonist  that  he  cannot,  and  must  not, 
according  to  his  principles,  blow  your  brains  out;  while 
you  claim  the  right  to  shoot  him  through  the  heart,  if  you 
can.  There  is  no  epithet  in  your  vocabulary  low  or  ven- 
omous enough  to  fling  at  priests  and  theologians,  but  when 
a  '*  policeman"  like  Mr.  Black  ventures  to  catalogue  you, 
you  are  up  in  indignation,  and  whine  and  whimper  about 
decency  and  the  etiquette  of  debate. 


CHAPTER   XV. 

OLD  AND  NEW  TESTAMENTS — SLAVERY  AND  CHRISTIANITY 
— THE  APOSTLES  NEITHER  LUNATICS  NOR  IMPOSTORS. 

INGERSOLL — **  In  tliis  age  of  fact  and  demonstration 
it  is  refreshing  to  find  a  man  who  believes  so  thor- 
oughly in  the  monstrous  and  miraculous,  the  impossible 
and  immoral." 

Comment — Here  you  assume  to  determine  what  is 
monstrous,  miraculous,  impossible  and  immoral.  It  is 
refreshing  in  this  age  of  general  education  to  see  an  infidel 
offering  his  crude  notions  as  ultimate  principles  or  axioms. 
To  say  your  opponent  believes  in  the  monstrous,  impos- 
sible and  immoral,  is  to  decide  the  question  in  your  own 
favor — to  play  the  counsel  for  the  prosecution  and  the 
judge  at  the  same  time — a  thing  not  permissible. 

The  words  "  fact"  and  "  demonstration"  are  to  you 
what  the  red  flag  is  to  the  Spanish  matadore;  you  flout 
them  in  the  face  of  the  people  as  the  matadore  flouts  the 
red  flag  in  the  face  of  his  intended  victim,  and  you  ima- 
gine they  will  throw  down  their  heads,  shut  their  eyes  and 
rush  at  them — and  be  taken  in.  You  are  mistaken.  You 
may  deceive  some — but  the  people  on  the  average  are  not 
fools. 

Ingersoll — "Mr.  Black  comes  to  the  conclusion  that 
the  Hebrew  Bible  is  in  exact  harmony  with  the  New 
Testament." 

125 


126  NOTES    ON    INGERSOLL. 

Comment — Mr.  Black  came  to  no  such  conclusion.  It 
is  no  doubt  true  that  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  "  are 
so  connected  together  that  if  one  is  true  the  other  can- 
not be  false."  This  is  your  opponent's  statement  and  it 
is  very  different  from  what  you  represent  him  as  saying.- 

Ingersoll — "  It  hardly  seems  possible  to  me  that  there 
is  a  right-minded,  sane  man,  except  Mr.  Black,  who 
believes  that  a  God  of  infinite  kindness  and  justice  ever 
commanded  one  nation  to  exterminate  another." 

Comment — It,  no  doubt,  appears  strange  and  hardly 
possible  to  you,  after  your  prodigal  use  of  deceit  and 
sophistry,  that  any  one  should  believe  anything  at  all. 
When  God  commands  one  nation  to  exterminate  another 
the  Christian  believes  that  there  is  very  serious  reason  for 
it.  He  believes  that  God  knows  more  than  he;  and  does 
not  think  that  to  be  a  philosopher  it  is  necessary  to  ex- 
haust the  resources  of  his  lachrymal  glands  on  every 
guilty  wretch  and  law-breaker  whom  the  God  of  justice 
deems  it  proper  to  lash  or  exterminate.  God  makes  in- 
struments of  nations  to  punish  nations. 

Ingersoll — "  In  his  (Black's)  efforts  to  show  that  the 
infallible  God  established  slavery  in  Judea,  he  takes  oc- 
casion to  say  that  '  the  doctrine  that  slavery  is  a  crime 
under  all  circumstances  was  first  started  by  the  adherents 
of  a  political  faction  in  this  country  less  than  forty  years 
ago.'" 

Comment — First.  Mr.  Black  never  made  any  efforts  to 
prove  that  God  establisiied  slavery  in  Judea,  notwith- 
standing your  inverted  commas. 

Second.     In  your  blundering  haste  to  reply  you  fail  to" 
catch    your    opponent's    meaning.     Black    says:    *'  The 


SLAVERY  AND    CHRISTIANITY.  I27 

doctrine  that  slavery  is  a  crime  under  all  circumstances, 
was  first  started,  etc.,  less  than  forty  years  a-go."  When 
Black  made  this  statement  he  took  it  for  granted  that  you 
knew  the  difference  between  that  which  is  wrong  in  itself, 
and  that  which  is  wrong  by  circumstances — inaluvi  in  se 
and  malum  per  accidens.  Your  opponent  is  too  good  a 
historian  to  say  that  the  anti-slavery  movement  began  only 
forty  years  ago. 

Since  the  advent  of  Christianity,  slavery  has  been  con- 
sidered a  social  and  circumstantial  evil,  an  improper  re- 
lation between  labor  and  capital,  but  it  was  never  con- 
sidered by  men  of  healthy  brains  an  evil  per  se,  an  evil  in 
its  nature  or  essence.  This  is  what  Mr.  Black  meant  by 
*'  all  circumstances,"  but  you  were  in  such  a  hurry  you 
did  not  see  it.  This  distinction  takes  the  pith  out  of  all 
your  eloquence  on  this  point.  The  anti-slavery  move- 
ment is  as  old  as  Christianity.  The  councils  of  the 
Christian  Church  have,  age  after  age,  labored  to  abolish 
it,  or  to  mitigate  its  severities.  It  did  not  begin  forty 
years  ago.  Mr.  Black  does  not  say  it  did.  He  says  that 
the  doctrine  that  slavery  was  wrong  under  all  circumstances, 
was  first  started  forty  years  ago.  In  this  he  is,  for  all 
practical  purposes,  correct.  With  this  distinction  in  view, 
your  argument  on  this  point  loses  its  wind.  The  Chris- 
tian Church,  during  eighteen  centuries,  has  fought  against 
slavery,  and  taught  that  all  men  are  equal  before  God. 
It  was  this  teaching  that  in  part  brought  about  the  per- 
secutions of  Christians  in  the  Roman  Empire.  The  law- 
makers of  Rome  at  that  time  were  slave  holders.  They 
did  not  relish  the  doctrine  preached  by  the  Apostles,  that 
all  men  are  equal,  and  they  enacted  laws  of  coercion  and 


128  NOTES    ON    INGERSOLL. 

repression.  But  the  genius  of  Christian  liberty  smiled  at 
their  imbecile  efforts,  knowing  that  slie  would  live  to  look 
back  through  centuries  at  the  forgotten  urns  of  these 
law-makers,  and  consider  their  acts  as  matters  of  ancient 
hislory. 

When  I  say  Christianity  antagonized  slavery  I  do  not 
mean  that  it  was  by  a  general,  indefinite  sentiment,  but 
by  actual  legislation.  I  will,  in  proof  of  this,  give  some 
of  the  councils  which  legislated  to  protect  the  slave. 
The  council  of  Elvira,  held  in  the  year  305;  the  coun- 
cil of  Epaon,  year  517;  the  council  of  Toledo,  year 
694;  the  fifth  council  of  Aries,  year  549;  Emerita,  666; 
the  eleventh  of  Toledo,  year  675;  Worms,  868;  second 
of  Macon,  585;  the  fifth  of  Paris,  614;  the  third  of 
Toledo,  589;  fourth  of  Toledo,  633;  of  Agde,  506; 
Rheims,  625;  the  third  of  Lyons,  583;  the  council  of  St. 
Patrick,  celebrated  in  Ireland  in  450,  required  church 
property  to  be  used  in  redeeming  captives;  tlie  second 
council  of  Vernenil,  844,  did  the  same.  The  second 
council  of  Lyons  excommunicated  those  who  enslaved 
others.  A  council  held  in  922,  declared  that  he  who  sold 
another  into  slavery  was  guilty  of  homicide.  A  council 
held  in  London  in  the  year  1102  forbade  the  selhng  of 
men  in  that  city,  and  called  it  an  infamous  traffic.  Pope 
Gregory  XVL  in  1839,  published  Apostolic  letters  against 
the  slave  trade.  I  might  mention  many  other  councils, 
but  I  have  given  enough  to  show  the  spirit  and  tendency 
of  Christianity  on  the  subject  of  slavery,  and  that  anti- 
slavery  is  a  Christian  thought. 

Ingersoll — "  It  will  not  do  to  take  the  ground  that 
the  rapid  rise  and  spread  of  a  religion  demonstrates  its 
divine  character," 


RISE  AND  SPREAD  OF    CHRISTIANITY.  120 

Comment — Certainly  not,  and  that  is  the  reason  why 
Mr.  Black  did  not  take  that  ground,  although  you  labor 
to  make  your  readers  believe  he  did.  Theologians  do 
not  teach  that  rapidity  of  rise  and  spread,  taken  alone, 
is  evidence  of  the  divine  character  of  Christianity. 
Hence  your  several  pages  devoted  to  show  the  unsound- 
ness of  that  position  are  just  so  much  waste  paper.  It 
is  a  loss  of  time,  as  well,  to  overthrow  a  position  that  no 
one  holds — that  has  no  existence  except  in  your  vivid  im- 
agination. 

That  it  may  be  seen  that  your  adversary  does  not  hold 
the  position  you  ascribe  to  him,  I  will  here  quote  his  ar- 
gument in  its  completeness: 

"  When  Jesus  of  Nazareth  announced  himself  to  be 
Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  in  Judea,  many  thousands  of 
persons  who  heard  his  words  and  saw  his  works  believed 
in  his  divinity  without  hesitation.  Since  the  morning 
of  creation,  nothing  has  occurred  so  wonderful  as  the 
rapidity  with  which  this  religion  has  spread  itself  abroad. 
Men  who  were  in  the  noon  of  life  when  Jesus  was  put  to 
death  as  a  malefactor  lived  to  see  him  worshipped  as  God 
by  organized  bodies  of  believers  in  every  province  of  the 
Roman  empire.  In  a  few  more  years  it  took  complete 
possession  of  the  general  mind,  supplanted  all  other  reli- 
gions, and  wrought  a  radical  change  in  human   society." 

This  is  a  succinct  statement  of  the  facts  in  the  case. 
Mr.  Black  next  proceeds  to  give  the  remarkable  circiim- 
stdfices  under  which  this  rapid  change  took  place;  and 
these  circumstances  are  an  integral  part  of  the  argument, 
for  it  is  by  them  that  the  rapid  rise  of  Christianity  is  dis- 
tinguishable from  that  of  other  religions.     It  is  the  rise  of 


130  NOTES   ON    INGERSOLL. 

Cliiistianity  in  the  face  of  these  circumstances  that  con- 
stitutes the  evidence  of  its  divine  origin.  Mr  Black  con- 
linues: 

"  It  did  this  in  the  face  of  obstacles  which,  according 
to  every  luinian  calculation,  were  insurmountable.  It 
was  antagonized  by  all  tiie  evil  propensities,  the  sensual 
wickedness,  and  liie  vulgar  crimes  of  the  multitude,  as 
well  as  tile  poiisiied  vices  @f  the  luxurious  classes;  and 
was  most  violently  opposed  even  by  those  sentiments  and 
habits  of  tliought  which  were  esteemed  virtuous,  such  as 
patriotism  and  military  heroism.  It  encountered  not  only 
the  ignorance  and  superstition,  but  the  learning  and  phil- 
osophy of  the  time.  Barbarism  and  civilization  were  alike 
its  deadly  enemies.  The  priesthood  of  every  established 
religion  and  the  authority  of  every  government  were  ar- 
rayed against  it.  All  these  combined  together  and  roused 
to  furious  hostility,  were  overcome,  not  by  the  enticing 
words  of  man's  wisdom,  but  by  the  simple  presentation 
of  a  pure  and  peaceful  doctrine,  preached  by  obscure 
strangers,  at  the  daily  peril  of  their  lives.  Is  it  Mr.  In- 
gersoll's  idea  that  this  happened  through  chance.?  If  not, 
there  are  but  two  other  ways  to  account  for  it;  either  the 
evidence  by  which  the  Apostles  were  able  to  prove  that 
the  supernntural  origin  of  the  Gospels  was  overwhelming 
and  irresistable,  or  else  its  propagation  was  provided  for 
and  carried  on  by  the  direct  aid  of  the  Divine  Being  him- 
self.    Between  these  two  infidelity  may  take  its  choice." 

This,  Mr.  Ingersoll,  is  your  adversary's  argument  in 
full,  and  the  reader  will  see  why  you  try  to  twist  it  out 
of  shape  before  you  attempt  to  answer  it,  and  why  you 
notice  one  part  and  ignore  the  other. 


RISE  AND  SPREAD  OF    CHRISTIANITY.  131 

Your  reply  is,  that  other  religions  arose  and  spread 
with  equal  rapidity.  Granted,  for  argument's  sake.  But 
did  they  arise  under  like  circumstances,  and  did  they 
meet  and  overcome  like  obstacles?  Christianity  met 
and  overcame  obstacles  "which,  according  to  every  human 
calculation,  were  insurmountable,"  says  Mr.  Black.  You 
do  not  deny  this,  and  you  cannot  assert  it  of  other 
religions. 

Ingersoll — "Imagine  a  Mohammedan  answering  an 
infidel;  would  he  not  use  the  argument  of  Mr.  Black, 
simply  substituting  Mohammed  for  Christ,  just  as  effect- 
ually as  it  has  been  used  against  me?" 

Comment — No,  because  a  Mohammedan  could  not  use 
it  with  truth  or  force.  It  would  be  equally  groundless 
in  the  mouth  of  a  Brahmin  or  a  priest  of  Isis  and  Osiris, 
for  the  rise  and  spread  of  these  false  religions  have 
nothing  in  common  with  the  rise  and  progress  of  Chris- 
tianity, except  perhaps  rapidity,  and  this  is  not  given 
by  Mr.  Black  as  a  proof  of  the  divine  origin  of  Chris- 
tianity. You  evidently  set  about  answering  his  argu- 
ment before  you  got  a  good  hold  of  its  full  force  and 
meaning. 

Ingersoll — "  Do  you  not  see  that  your  argument 
proves  too  much,  and  that  it  is  equally  applicable  to  all 
the  religions  of  the  world?" 

Comment — No;  the  flickering  and  uncertain  glare  of 
your  light  does  not  enable  me  to  see  it.  A  better  light, 
that  of  reason,  together  with  a  little  knowledge  of  the 
facts  in  the  case,  will  convince  your  readers  that  it  is  ap- 
plicable to  Christianity  alone  of  all  religions  that  ever 
claimed  the  attention  of  man.     Your  efforts  to  make  the 


132 


KOT£S    ON    INGERSOLL. 


argument  fit  Buddhism,  Brahminism.  and  Mohammedan- 
ism can  succeed  only  by  misrepresenting  it,  which,  by  the  ■ 
way,  you  have  not  hesitated  to  do. 

Ingersoll — "The  old  argument  that  if  Christianity  is 
a  human  fabrication,  its  authors  must  have  been  either 
good  men  or  bad  men,  takes  it  for  granted  that  there  are 
but  two  classes  of  persons — the  good  and  the  bad.  There 
is  at  least  one  other  class — the  mistaken. 

CoiMMENT— Then  you  must  belong  to  this  newly-in- 
vented class.  The  mistaken  must  be  either  good  or  bad. 
If  they  are  honestly  mistaken,  they  are  good  so  far  as  the 
subject  of  the  mistake  goes;  if  they  are  dishonestly  mis- 
taken they  are  bad.  Don't  you  see  we  must  come  back 
to  the  two  classes  which  "  the  old  argument  takes  for 
granted"? 

Ingersoll — "The  history  of  the  world  is  filled  with 
instances  where  men  have  honestly  supposed  that  they 
had  received  communications  from  angels  and  gods." 

Comment — How  do  you  know  that  they  honestly  sup- 
posed? Must  you  not,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  take 
their  words  for  the  honesty  of  their  supposition?  Then 
it  is  their  claim  to  have  received  communications  that 
constitutes  the  instances  with  which  you  say  history  is 
filled.  Now,  a  claim  is  something  tangible,  something 
that  can  be  tested.  When  a  man  claims  to  have  received 
a  communication  from  God,  Christians  and  all  other  sen- 
sible people  require  some  evidence  in  proof  of  the  truth 
of  his  claim,  and  it  is  this  test  that  enables  us  to  distin- 
guish between  real  and  imaginary,  true  and  pretended 
communications.  History  is  full  of  instances  where  men 
have  claimed  to  have  received  divine  communications;  it 


The  Apostles  not  impostors.  133 

is  also  full  of  instances  where  these  claims  were  rejected 
for  want  of  sufficient  evidence  of  their  truth. 

Ingersoll — **  What  we  must  say  is  tiiat,  being  good 
men,  they  were  mistaken." 

Comment — Then  you  know  more  about  events  that 
transpired  nearly  two  thousand  years  ago  than  those  who 
were  eye-witnesses  to  them!  Whatever  else  a  modern 
infidel  may  lack,  he  is  never  found  wanting  in  assurance. 
It  is  his  strong  point. 

The  Apostles  claimed  a  divine  communication  and  mis- 
sion. They  worked  miracles  in  proof  of  tlieir  claim. 
These  miracles  proved  both  to  themselves  and  to  those 
who  witnessed  them  that  there  could  be  no  mistake  about 
their  claim.  'HVliat  we  must  say  is,  that  you  are  mis- 
taken," when  you  assume  to  be  a  better  judge,  a  more  re- 
liable witness,  of  events  that  transpired  nineteen  hundred 
years  ago  in  Judea  than  those  were  who  then  lived,  and 
saw  those  events  with  their  own  eyes,  or  heard  them  with 
their  own  ears.  Would  your  statements,  under  the  cir- 
cumstances, be  taken  against  theirs  in  any  court  of  jus- 
tice.** 

It  is  true  that  there  have  been  insane  people  and  fanat- 
ical enthusiasts  who  imagined  that  they  had  amission  from 
God,  but  this  does  not  prove  that  sane  men  have  not  had 
real  commissions  and  missions  from  God.  A  false  prophet 
does  not  destroy  the  possibility  of  recognizing  a  true  one, 
as  a  counterfeit  note  does  not  destroy  the  value  of  a  genuine 
note.  There  are  many  presidents  of  the  United  States 
and  Queen  Victorias  in  our  insane  asylums.  Do  their 
hallucinations  vitiate  the  real  president's  title  or  prove  that 
there  is  no  such  person  as  Queen  Victoria?     Or  does  the 


134  NOTES    ON    INGERSOLL. 

delusion  of  Guiteau  destroy  the  claims  of  a  Moses  or  a 
St.  Paul  to  a  divine  commission  ?  Yet  this  is  the  assump- 
tion and  drift  of  your  argument  against  the  mission  of 
the  Apostles!     Your  reasoning  stated  in  form  is  this: 

Some  men  have  been  mistaken. 

Therefore  the  founders  of  Christianity  were  mistaken. 

A  boy  who  could  reason  no  better  than  this  ought  to 
have  his  ears  boxed — if  boxes  large  enough  could  be 
found. 


CHAPTER  XVI. 

WHO  WROTE    THE  GOSPELS? — CHARACTER    OF  THE    EVAN- 
GELISTS— MIRACLES  OF  CHRIST — LAZARUS,  COME  FORITI. 

INGERSOLL— **  We  are  told  that  '  there  is  no  good 
reason  to  doubt  that  the  statements  of  the  Evangelists, 
as  we  have  them  now,  are  genuine.'  The  fact  is,  no  one 
knows  who  made  the  *  statements  of  the  Evangelists.* " 

Comment — The  fact  is,  there  can  be  no  reasonable 
doubt  whatever  that  Matthew,  Mark,  Luke,  and  John 
wrote  the  Gospels  attributed  to  them.  Your  statement 
to  the  contrary  has  not  a  particle  of  evidence  to  rest  on. 
You  have  as  good  reason,  and  no  better,  to  say  that  no 
one  knows  who  wrote  Sl;akespeare,  Paradise  Lost  of 
Milton,  the  Divine  Comedy  of  Dante,  Caesar,  Livy, 
Tacitus,  Josephus  or  Homer.  No  one  ever  doubts  that 
those  books  were  written  by  the  authors  to  whom  they 
are  attributed.  The  same  kind  of  evidence  that  estab- 
lishes the  authenticity  of  these,  proves  the  authenticity 
of  the  Gospels  in  a  higher  degree.  Historical  evidence, 
common  tradition,  and  a  concatenation  of  circumstances, 
are  all  we  have  to  prove  the  genuineness  of  Hamlet 
and  Othello,  Paradise  Lost,  Livy,  Tacitus,  and  Josephus. 
And  they  are  abundantly  sufficient.  Now  this  historical 
evidence,  common  tradition  and  concatenation  of  cir- 
cumstances are  equally  strong  for  the  authors  of  the  four 
Gospels.     They  are  stronger;  for  th#  facts  treated  of  in 

135 


136  .  NOTES   ON    INGERSOLL. 

the  Gospels  have  changed  the  course  of  human  history, 
and  in  consequence  the  attention  of  mankind  has  been 
more  particularly  directed  to  them.  The  more  important 
the  contents  of  a  book  are  to  mankind,  the  more  surely 
will  its  genuineness  be  admitted  or  denied  from  the  be- 
ginning. It  is  a  remarkable  fact  that  the  authenticity  or 
genuineness  of  the  four  Gospels  was  never  brought  in  ques- 
tion until  modern  times,  and  then  only  by  a  few  infidels; 
and  even  these  confine  themselves  to  bold,  naked,  ground- 
less statements.  These  Gospels  were  received  in  the 
earliest  times  as  genuine,  and  were  quoted  by  the  earliest 
Christian  writers  as  the  works  of  Matthew,  Mark,  Luke, 
and  John.  All  the  enemies  of  Christianity,  Jew,  Pagan, 
or  heretic,  who  wrote  against  the  Christian  religion, 
admitted  without  a  shadow  of  hesitation  or  doubt  the 
genuineness  of  these  Gospels. 

Celsus,  who  lived  in  the  second  century,  and  was  as 
rabid  an  enemy  of  the  Christian  religion  as  you  are,  not 
only  mentions  by  name,  but  also  quotes  passages  from 
the  books  of  the  New  Testament,  so  that  it  is  certain  we 
have  the  identical  books  to  which  he  referred.  In  all  his 
writings  extant  he  never  suggests  the  slightest  doubt  of 
the  genuineness  of  the  books  he  quotes  from,  and  whose 
doctrines  he  opposes.  Porphyry  (A.  D.  233),  another 
ami-Christian  writer,  in  his  objections  takes  for  granted 
the  genuineness  of  the  Gospels.  Julian  the  Apostate, 
(A.  D.  363),  another  enemy  of  the  Church,  calls  the 
Gospels  by  the  name  they  now  bear,  and  nowhere  ques- 
tions their  genuineness  or  authenticity.  Neither  Celsus 
in  the  second  century,  Porphyry  in  the  third,  nor  Julian 
in  the  fourth,  doubted  the  authenticity  of  these  books,  or 


WHO  WROTE    THE    GOSPELS? 


137 


ever  insinuated  that  Christians  were  mistaken  in  the 
authors  to  whom  they  ascribed  tliem.  Not  one  of  them 
expressed  an  opinion  on  this  subject  that  was  different 
from  that  held  by  the  early  Christians.  There  is  much 
more  evidence  that  could  be  adduced  for  the  authenticity 
of  ^the  Gospels  and  the  other  books  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, but  it  is  needless.  Those  who  wish  to  read  them 
in  full  can  consult  Horn's  Introduction  to  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  vol.  I.,  Chapters  III.  and  IV.,  and  DuClot's 
Sainte  Bible  Vengee,  vol.  III.  Those  who  will  examine 
these  books  may  see  what  value  is  to  be  placed  on  your 
statement  that  "  no  one  knows  who  made  the  statements 
of  the  Evangelists." 

Ingersoll — "There  are  three  important  manuscripts 
upon  which  the  Christian  world  relies,  *  *  the  Codex 
Vatican,  *  *  the  Codex  Alexandrine,  *  *  and  the 
Sinaitic  Codex. 

Comment — These  Codices  are  simply  the  oldest  known 
manuscripts  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures.  They  are  not 
original  manuscripts;  only  the  completest  copies  extafii, 
and  they  are  all  more  or  less  imperfect.  These  manu- 
scripts are  venerable  and  useful,  but  it  is  not  true  to  say 
the  Christian  world  relies  or  depends  on  them.  If  they 
were  all  swept  out  of  existence  to-morrow,  it  would  not 
have  any  effect  whatever  on  Christianity,  which  existed 
before  them,  and  will  survive  them. 

Black — "  Nothing  was  said  by  the  most  virulent  ene- 
mies against  the  personal  honesty  of  the  Evangelists." 
Ingersoll — "  How  is  this  known.?" 
Comment — It   is  known  from   the   fact  that  neither  in 
tr<^dition  nor  history  is   there  anything  directly  or  indi- 


138  NOTES    ON    INGERSOLL. 

rectly  throwing  the  least  suspicion  or  shadow  of  doubt  on 
their  honesty,  integrity,  and  holiness  of  life.  The  Apostles 
certainly  have  a  right  to  the  same  protection  that  you 
claim  for  your  own  character.  You  will  not  deny  them 
this.  Now,  suppose  a  friend  of  yours  said:  "Nothing  is 
said  by  the  most  virulent  enemies  against  the  personal 
honesty  and  virtue  of  Mr.  Ingersoll."  What  would  you 
think  of  the  man  who  would  reply  by  saying:  "How  is 
this  known?"  You  would  say  he  was  a  coward  and  a  con- 
temptible sneak,  with  the  heart  of  an  assassin  without  his 
courage.  Is  not  yo^r  honesty  and  virtue  to  be  taken  for 
granted  until  there  is  evidence  to  the  contrary?  Is  not 
that  man  a  criminal  who  .attempts  to  rob  you  of  your 
character  by  hints  or  winks  or  insinuating  questions? 
Christianity  teaches  that  he  is,  whatever  you  may  think, 
with  your  code  of  morals.  The  world,  after  nearly  twenty 
centuries,  has  found  nothing  but  holiness  in  the  character 
of  the  Apostles,  and  they  have  lived  during  all  that  time 
in  the  calcium  light  of  history.  The  infidels  and  Christ- 
haters  of  all  times  have  found  nothing  against  them,  and 
yet,  after  this  long  trial,  when  their  personal  honesty  is 
asserted,  you,  the  apostle  of  fair  play  and  "  honor  bright," 
ask:  *' How  is  this  known?"  How  small  men  can  become 
when  led  by  one  overmastering  passion  or  delusion. 

Ingersoll — '*  If  Clirist  performed  the  miracles  recorded 
in  the  New  Testament,  why  would  the  Jews  put  to  death 
a  man  able  to  raise  the  dead?" 

Comment — The  miracles  of  Christ  recorded  in  the  New 
Testament  were  admitted  by  the  Jews.  It  never  occur- 
red to  Jew,  Gentile  or  Pagan  to  doubt  the  fact  of  those 
miracles.     Celsus,  Porphyry  and   Julian  admitted  them 


MIRACLES  OF  CHRIST.  I39 

and  tried  to  deprive  them  of  their  significance  and  force 
by  saying  that  Christ  was  a  magician  who  had  learned  the 
black  art  in  Egypt  while  he  dwelt  with  Mary  his  mother 
on  the  banks  of  the  Nile.  The  Jews  also  accounted  for 
his  power,  which  they  admitted,  by  saying  he  had  stolen 
the  unspeakable  word  from  the  temple;  and  some  of  them 
said  he  worked  miracles  by  the  power  of  the  devil.  These 
explanations  of  his  miracles  are  the  strongest  evidence  of 
their  reality.  Porphyry  (A.  D.  270)  said:  "  Jesus,  having 
been  raised  obscurely,  went  to  Egypt,  where  having  learned 
to  perform  some  miracles,  he  returned  to  Judea,  and  pro- 
claimed himself  to  b?  God." 

Julian  the  Emperor  and  Apostate  (361)  said:  **  He 
(Christ)  did  not  do  anything  worth  speaking  of,  unless  we 
consider  it  a  great  thing  to  have  cured  the  deaf  and  blind 
and  to  have  expelled  the  demons  from  those  who  were 
possessed  in  the  villages  of  Bethsaida  and  Bethany."  The 
miracles  of  Christ  were  so  striking  and  so  public  that  the. 
anti-christian  philosophers  were  driven  to  the  necessity 
of  admitting  them  and  trying  to  explain  them  away. 
Thus,  Hierocles,  a  pagan  philosopher,  and  governor  of  Al- 
exandria under  the  Emperor  Dioclesian,  was  not  satisfied 
with  persecuting  the  Christians,  but  he  must,  to  prove  his 
loyalty,  no  doubt,  write  a  book  in  which  he  compared  the 
pretended  miracles  of  ApoUonius  Thyanseus  to  those  of 
Christ.  There  were  no  lecture-bureaus  at  the  time,  and 
no  North  American  Review^  so  Hierocles  had  to  write  a 
book.  He  wrote  his  book  in  which  he  said  as  follows, 
and  in  which  the  reader  will  recognize  a  certain  Ingersol- 
lian  twang: 

*'  The  Christians  make  a  great  ^oise  and  give   great 


T40  NOTES   ON    INGERSOLL. 

praise  to  Jesus  because  he  gave  sight  to  the  blind,  and  did 
other  wonders.  *  *  We  have  better  reason  in  attributing 
like  works  to  many  great  men,  such  as  Aristeus,  Pytha- 
goras, Apollonius." 

After  having  described  the  wonders  worked  by  Apol- 
lonius, this  pagan  philosopher  continues: 

"  I  speak  of  these  wonders  to  show  that  we  think  more 
wisely  than  the  Christians;  we  do  not  regard  as  a  God, 
but  as  a  friend  of  the  gods,  a  man  who  has  worked  such 
great  wonders;  the  Christians,  on  the  contrary,  publish 
that  Jesus  is  God  0)1  account  of  the  trifling  prodigies  he 
performed.  Peter,  Paul,  and  some,  others  of  that  sect, 
liars,  ignorants,  and  magicians,  have  boasted  of  ti^e  ac 
tions  of  Jesus,  but  Maximus  Degeus,  the  philosophe/ 
Darius,  Piiilostratus,  wise  men  and  lovers  of  truth,  have 
told  us  of  the  miracles  of  Apollonius." 

According  to  Arnobius  the  pagans  held  that  Jesus  had 
stolen  from  the  sanctuary  of  the  Egyptians  the  names  of 
the  powerful  genii,  and  the  secrets  by  which  he  performed 
his  wonders. 

Now,  Mr.  Ingersoll,  do  not  all  these  attempts  of  ancient 
philosophers  to  belittle  and  explain  away  the  works  of 
Jesus  Christ  prove  that  those  works  were  real — that  they 
were,  known  and  admitted?  These  men  knew  the  facts 
belter  than  you  do,  and  instead  of  denying  them  as 
you  do,  they  tried*  to  make  little  of  them  or  explain  them 
away. 

Ingersoll— "If  Christ  performed  the  miracles  re- 
corded in  the  New  Testament,  why  would  the  Jews  put 
to  death  a  man  able  to  raise  their  dead?" 

Comment — The  argument  of  this  question  is,  that  be- 


MIRACLES  OF  CHRIST.  I4I 

cause  the  Jews  put  Christ  to  death,  they  did  not  believe 
in  his  miracles  as  recorded  in  the  Gospels.  But  this  con- 
clusion is  false.  The  Jews  believed  that  God  had  for- 
bidden them  to  abandon  the  law  of  Moses,  even  if  a  pro- 
phet performing  miracles  required  llieni  lo  do  so.  From 
'  the  time  of  Christ  down  to  the  present,  the  Jews  have 
always  and  uniformly  believed  in  the  reality  of  the 
miracles  of  Christ.  If  you  do  not  believe  this,  consult  their 
Talmuds. 

Well,  then,  you  will  ask,  if  they  admitted  the  fact  of 
his  miracles,  why  did  they  not  accept  him  as  the  Messiah.? 
While  they  admitted  the  miracles,  they  did  not  believe 
that  they  proved  him  to  be  the  Messiah.  Their  propliets 
had  performed  miracles  under  the  Mosaic  law.  Tiiey 
had  even  raised  the  dead.  The  Jews  in  the  time  of  Christ 
could  not  understand  how  miracles  could  be  worked  to 
abrogate  that  law.  Fixed  habits  and  prejudices,  then, 
caused  them  to  reject  the  evidence  of  his  miracles  while 
they  admitted  the /^^/ of  them.  They  attributed  them  to 
Beelzebub.  Again,  they  believed  that  the  promised  Son 
of  David  was  to  be  a  great  temporal  prince,  that  he  was 
to  free  the  Jewish  people  and  establish  a  great  Jewish 
empire,  restore  the  Jewish  nobility,  and  raise  the  Aaronic 
priesthood  to  its  ancient  preeminence  and  glory.  His 
preaching  and  humble  life  gave  no  encouragement  to 
these  hopes,  and  they  refused  to  believe  in  him  as  the 
promised  Messiah,  even  while  they  admitted  his  miracles. 
And  they  put  him  to  death,  as  they  had  put  to  death  their 
acknowledged  prophets. 

Ingersoll—*' Why    should    they    attempt  to  kill    the 
master  of  death.?" 


142  NOTES    ON    INGERSOLL. 

Comment — To  prove  that  he  was  not  master  of  death. 

Ingersoll — '  How  did  it  happen  that  a  man  who 
had  done  so  many  miracles  was  so  obscure,  so  unknown, 
that  one  of  his  disciples  had  to  be  bribed  to  point  him 
out?" 

Comment — If  he  was  so  obscure  and  unknown  why  was* 
Judas  bribed  to  point  him  out  at  all?  That  was  not  an 
age  of  weekly  pictorials,  by  which  the  faces  of  public  men 
are  made  familiar  to  the  people.  If  you  were  to  be  ar- 
rested to-morrow  for  murder,  the  law  requires  that  some 
one  formally  identify  you. 

Ingersoll — "Is  it  not  strange  that  the  ones  he  had 
cured  were  not  his  disciples?" 

Comment — It  would  be  strange  if  true;  but  how  do 
you  happen  to  know  they  were  not?  Is  it  not  strange 
that  you  should  know  more  about  those  who  were  cured 
than  history  knows?  Where  did  you  get  your  informa- 
tion? How  do  you  know  that  the  son  of  the  widow  of 
Naim  was  not  a  disciple  of  Christ?  or  Lazarus,  or  the 
deaf,  the  blind,  and  the  lame?  You  simply  know  nothing 
whatever  about  it.  And  yet  with  your  infidel  brass  you 
say  they  were  not! 

Ingersoll — "Can  we  believe,  on  the  testimony  of  those 
about  whose  character  we  know  nothing,  that  Lazarus  was 
raised  from  the  dead?" 

Comment — Yes,  we  can,  and  must,  just  as  we  believe 
the  facts  of  all  history.  We  believe  that  Caesar  was  as- 
sassinated by  Brutus;  that  Philip  was  king  of  Macedon; 
that  Alexander  his  son  wss  a  great  conqueror;  that 
Homer  lived  and  wrote  a  book  on  the  Trojnn  wars;  that 
Virgil  wrote  the  adventures  of  ^neas;  thai  Demosthenes 


LAZARUS,  COME  FORTH.  I43 

thundered   against  Philip,  and   that  Cicero  tore  the  veil 
of  hypocrisy  from  the  brow  of  Cateline  and  aroused  the 
Romans  to  the  dangers  of  his  conspiracy;  that  the  Roman 
empire  existed  and  fell,  and  that  Christian  nations  rose 
out  of  its  ruins.     All  these  and  a  thousand  other  facts  we 
do  and  must  believe,  and  yet  what  do  we  know  about  the 
character    of    the  witnesses  who  testify  to    them?     The 
principle  that  destroys  the  credibility  of  the  Gospel   his- 
tories  destroys    at    the  same   time  the  credibility  of  all 
history  and  the  credibility  of  the  human  race. 
Ingersoll — '  What  became  of  Lazarus?" 
Comment — It  is  probable  that  he  lived  an  honest  life, 
and  did  not  spend  his  time  in  asking  foolish  questions. 
Ingersoll — "  We  never  hear  of  him  again." 
Comment — The  world  has  not  ceased  to  hear  of  him  to 
good  purpose  for  the  last  nineteen  hundred  years. 

Ingersoll — '*  It  seems  to  me  he  would  have  been  an 
object  of  great  interest." 

Comment — So  it  has  proved,  although  he  was  not  the 
first  man  who  was  raised  from  the  dead,  as  we  learn  from 
the  Old  Testament. 


CHAPTER  XVII. 

MIRACLES  OF  CHRIST — JOSEPHUS. 

INGERSOLL — "  How  is  it  known  that  it  was  claimed, 
during  the  life  of  Christ,  that  he  had  wrought  a 
miracle?" 

Comment — It  is  known  from  four  histories  written  by 
four  well-known  historians  who  were  contemporaries  of 
the  Jewish  historian  Josephus.  Their  names  are  Matthew, 
Mark,  Luke,  and  John.  These  historians,  whom  the 
world  has  always  believed,  tell  us  that  the  Jews  accused 
Christ  of  working  miracles  by  the  power  of  Beelzebub, 
and  that  Christ  reasoned  with  them  to  prove  that  his 
miracles  were  not  wocked  by  such  power.  This  is  the 
way  it  is  known  that  it  was  claimed  and  admitted,  during 
the  life  of  Christ,  that  he  wrought  miracles.  These 
historians  give  many  other  instances  that  I  might  adduce, 
but  it  is  not  necessary. 

Ingersoll— "  And  if  the  claim  was  made,  how  is  it 
known  that  it  was  not  denied?" 

Comment— There  is  contemporary  evidence  that  the 
claim  was  made  and  admitted,  and  there  is  no  evidence 
whatever  that  it  was  ever  denied.  On  the  contrary,  all 
history  takes  those  miracles  as  facts  that  have  been  passed 
upon  as  no  longer  legitimate  subjects  of  dispute. 

As  you  have  adduced  no  ancient  historian  who  denies 
the  mirarles  of  Christ,  it  must  be  taken  for  grantee^ 
144 


MIRACLES  OF  CHRIST.  145 

that  there  is  none.  If  there  was  a  single  line  of  Jew 
or  Pagan  denying  these  miracles,  you  infidels  would 
hammer  on  it  as  persistently  as  the  gentlemanly  waiter 
hammers  on  the  Chinese  gong  at  the  railroad  depot — 
twenty  minutes  for  refreshments.  FaiHng  to  find  any 
evidence  of  this  kind  what  do  you  do?  It  is  almost  in- 
credible, but  nevertheless  true;  you  actually  call  on 
Ciiristians  to  prove  that  no  such  evidence  ever  existed! 
You  say:  "How  is  it  known  that  it  was  not  denied?" 
The  Devil  himself,  in  the  highest  flight  of  his  genius,  never 
surpassed  this  piece  of  supreme  impertinence.  You  are 
a  lawyer,  and  as  such  you  are  supposed  to  know  sometliing 
about  legal  logic  at  least.  Now  what  would  you  say  of 
the  counsel  for  the  prosecution  in  the  star  route  cases  if, 
after  failing  to  find  any  evidence  of  the  guilt  of  the  ac- 
cused, they  should  require  you  to  prove  that  no  such 
evidence  ever  existed?  Suppose  Merrick,  your  able 
opponent  in  the  star  route  suit,  should,  after  failing  to 
produce  evidence  of  guilt,  say:  "How  is  it  known  that 
such  evidence  does  not  exist?"  What  would  you  feel  like 
saying  of  him?  What  would  the  court  think  of  him?  This 
is  the  predicament  you  place  yourself  in  when  you  ask: 
How  is  it  known  that  the  miracles  of  Christ  were  never 
denied? 

.  Ingersoll — *'  Did  the  Jews  believe  that  Christ  was 
clothed  with  miraculous  power  ?" 

Comment — They  did.  And  they  believed  that  their 
prophets  were  also  clothed  with  miraculous  power,  even 
that  of  raising  the  dead,  and  this  was  the  reason  why  the 
miracles  of  Christ  did  not  convince  them  that  he  was 
God  or  the  Messiah, 


146  NOTES   ON    INGERSOLL. 

Ingersoll — "  Is  it  not  wonderful  that  Josephus,  the 
best  historian  the  Hebrews  produced,  says  nothing  about 
the  life  or  death  of  Christ  ?" 

Comment — Nothing?     Here  is  what  he  says: — 

"  Now^  there  was  about  this  time  Jesus,  a  wise  man,  if 
it  be  lawful  to  call  him  a  man:  for  he  performed  many 
wonderful  works.  He  was  a  teacher  of  such  men  as  re- 
ceived the  truth  with  pleasure.  He  drew  over  to  him 
many  of  the  Jews,  and  also  many  Gentiles.  This  man 
was  the  Christ.  And  when  Pilate,  at  the  instigation  of 
the  principal  men  among  us,  had  condemned  him  to  the 
cross,  those  who  had  loved  him  from  the  first  did  not 
cease  to  adhere  to  him.  For  he  appeared  to  them  alive 
again  on  the  third  day;  the  divine  prophets  having  fore- 
told these  and  ten  thousand  other  wonderful  things  con- 
cerning him.  And  the  tribe  of  the  Christians,  so  named 
from  him,  subsists  to  this  time." — Antiquities  of  the  Jews, 
Book   18,  chap.  3. 

This  is  something  about  the  life  and  death  of  Christ,  is 
it  not? 

Ingersoll — '*  The  paragraph  in  Josephus  is  admitted 
to  be  an  interpolation." 

Comment — Admitted  by  whom  ?  By  you,  and  Paine, 
and  Voltaire,  and  other  infidels,  Tooley  street  tailors. 
The  paragraph  is  so  strong  and  direct  that  the  infidel 
fraternity  cannot  get  over  its  force  except  by  denying  its 
genuineness.  And  tins  they  do  accordingly.  After  this 
denial,  which  in  itself  is  of  no  weight  whatever,  they  pro- 
ceed to  the  next  step  in  infidel  tactics  and  say,  "it  is  ad- 
mitted." Now,  sir,  it  is  not  admitted  that  this  paragraph 
is  an   interpolation.     On   the  contrary,  it  is  held  to  be 


JOSEPHUS.  147 

genuine,  and  for  the  best  of  reasons.  It  is  found  in  all 
the  copies  of  Josephus's  works  now  extant,  whether  printed 
or  manuscript;  in  a  Hebrew  translation  preserved  in 
the  Vatican  Library,  and  in  an  Arabic  version  preserved 
by  the  Maronites  of  Mount  Libanus.  It  is  cited  by 
Eusebius,  tlie  most  ancient  of  Church  liistorians,  by  St. 
Jerome,  Rufinus,  Isidore  of  Pelusium,  Sozomen,  Cassio- 
dorus,  Nicephorus,  and  many  others.  Eusebius  was  the 
first  to  quote  this  passage,  and  it  is  morally  impossible 
tliat  he  could  have  forged  it  without  being  detected. 
No  objection  was  made  to  this  passage  in  the  early  ages 
by  any  of  the  opponents  of  the  Christian  faith.  The 
paragraph  is  then  genuine,  according  to  all  rules  of  evi- 
dence and  all  the  canons  of  sound  criticism. 

Ingersoll — "  Is  it  not  wonderful  that  no  historian 
ever  mentioned  any  of  these  prodigies  ?" 

Comment — The  prodigies  you  refer  to  are,  ist,  the 
massacre  of  the  infants  by  Herod;  2nd,  the  Star  of  Beth- 
lehem; 3rd,  the  darkness  at  the  time  of  the  crucifixion,  etc. 

The  first  is  referred  to  by  Macrobius,  a  heathen  histo- 
rian, in  such  a  manner  as  to  leave  no  doubt  as  to  the 
universal  belief  in  the  fact. 

The  second  is  mentioned  by  Chalcidus,  a  Platonic  phil- 
osopher, who  attests  the  fact  in  almost  the  same  words  as 
the  gospel: 

This  Platonist  says:  "There  is  another  history  most 
worthy  of  our  religious  veneration,  which  notes  the  ap- 
parition of  a  star  destined  to  announce  to  men,  not  dis- 
ease or  some  terrible  mortality,  but  the  advent  of  a  God 
who  came  down  for  the  salvation  and  happiness  of  the 
human  race."     Julian  the  Emperor  and  Apostate  admit- 


148  NOTES   ON    INGERSOLL. 

ted  the  truth  of  the  account  of  this  star  which  led  the 
wise  men,  by  saying  that  it  was  the  star  Asaph,  observed 
by  the  Egyptians  as  making  its  appearance  every  four 
hundred  years. 

The  third  (the  darkness)  is  mentioned  by  Phlegon  of 
Trallium,  a  pagan  who  lived  in  the  middle  of  the  second 
century,  /.  e.,  about  the  year  of  oar  Lord  150.  He  says: 
"The  fourth  year  of  the  two  luindred  and  second  Olym- 
piad, there  was  an  eclipse  of  the  sun,  the  grandest  tliat 
had  ever  been  hitherto.  About  the  sixth  hour  of  the  day 
a  night  so  obscured  that  the  stars  in  the  heavens  became 
visible.  A  great  earthquake  took  place,  which  overturned 
many  houses  in  the  city  of  Nice  in  Bythania."  This 
■202d  Olympiad,  year  4,  corresponds  with  the  33d  year  of 
the  Christian  era.  That  is  the  year  and  time  of  the  cruci- 
fixion. But  let  us  go  back  a  little.  You  say:  "Josephus 
is  the  best  historian  the  Hebrews  produced."  Now,  I 
ask  you,  on  what  principle  do  you  accept  the  works  of 
Josephus  as  genuine,  while  you  reject  the  works  of  Mat-' 
thew,  Mark,  Luke  and  John?  They  v/ere  contempora- 
ries. If  the  evidence  for  the  authenticity  or  genuineness 
of  the  histories  attributed  to  the  Evangelists  is  not  suffi- 
cient to  give  them  the  stamp  of  veracity,  what  more 
evidence  have  you  for  the  genuineness  and  veracity  of 
Josephus?  Why  do  you  reject  the  works  of  the  Evange- 
lists and  admit  the  works  of  Josephus?  It  is  useless  to 
ask  the  question  and  expect  an  answer.  The  real  answer 
is  this:  You  imagine  Josephus  does  not  antagonize  your 
infidel  theories,  and  the  Evangelic  historians  do.  This 
accounts  for  your  enmity  for  the  one  and  your  admira- 
tion for  the  other. 


CHAPTER  XVIII. 

MR.  INGERSOLL  AS  A  HERMENEUTIST — JOSEPHUS  AGAIN — 
THE  ASCENSION — 1.AST  WORDS  OF  CHRIST — GENEALOGY. 

INGERSOLL — "  Is  it  not  more  amazing  than  all  the 
rest,  that  Christ"  himself  concealed  from  Matthew 
Mark  and  Luke  the  dogma  of  Atonement,  the  necessity 
of  belief,  and  the  mystery,  of  the  second  birth?" 

Comment — First.  Atonement  is  the  expiation  of  sin 
by  the  obedience  and  personal  sufferings  of  Christ — re- 
demption. Now,  Matthew  says:  "  Even  as  the  son  of 
Man  came  not  to  be  ministered  unto,  but  to  minister,  and 
to  give  his  life  a  redeviption  for  7najiy.'' — xx.  28.  Mark 
makes  the  same  statement  word  for  word. — x.  45.  Luke 
says:  *' But  those  things  which  God  had  foretold  by  the 
mouth  of  all  the  prophets,  that  his  Christ  should  suffer, 
he  hath  so  fulfilled." — Acts  iii.  18.  In  the  face  of  these 
facts  how  can  you  say  that  Christ  concealed  this  dogma 
from  these  Evangelists? 

Second.     The  necessity  of  belief. 

On  this  Mark  says:  "  He  that  /^^to^^M  not  shall  be  con- 
demned."— xvi.  15.  Luke,  in  his  book  called  The  Acts 
of  the  Apostles,  says:  ''Believe  in  the  Lord  Jesus:  and 
thou  shalt  be  saved,  and  thy  house." — xv.  31.  Why  did 
you  say  Christ  concealed  the  necessity  of  belief  from 
Mark  and  Luke? 

Third.     The  mystery  of  the  second  birth. 

149 


ISO 


NOTES    ON    INGERSOLL. 


On  this  Matthew  says:  "  Go  ye,  therefore,  and  teach 
all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and 
of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost." — xxviii.  19.  Mark 
teaches:  "  He  that  believeth,  and  is  baptized,  shall  be 
saved." — xvi.  16.  It  does  not  appear  that  this  doctrine 
was  concealed  from  these  Evangelists, 

Ingersoll — "  When  we  remember  that  eighteen  hun- 
dred years  ago  there  were  but  few  people  who  could 
write,  and  that  a  manuscript  did  not  become  public  in 
any  modern  sense,  it  was  possible  for  the  Gospels  to 
have  been  written  with  all  the  foolish  claims  in  reference 
to  miracles  without  exciting  comment  or  denial." 

Comment — The  Gospels  and  the  other  writings  of  the 
New  Testament  were  better  known  in  the  age  in  which 
they  were  written  than  any  other  books,  sacred  or  pro- 
fane. Other  books  were  written  for  the  few,  the  learned; 
the  books  of  the  New  Testament  were  written  for  the 
people.  They  were  read  every  Sunday  to  the  people, 
and  their  teaching  became  their  rule  of  conduct  and  life, 
while  the  writings  of  philosophers  and  profane  historians 
were  known  only  to  the  student;  they  did  not  enter  into 
the  lives  and  habits  of  the  people.  This  is  one  reason 
why  so  few  of  these  historians  have  survived  the  lapse  of 
ages,  while  the  writings  of  Apostles  have  come  down  to 
us  in  all  their  completeness.  They  were  therefore  pub- 
lic, and  the  miracles  recorded  in  them  did  excite  com- 
ment and  caused  the  conversion  of  thousands  of  both 
Jews  and  Gentiles. 

Ingersoll — "  There  is  not,  in  all  the  contempora- 
neous literature  of  the  world,  a  single  word  about  Christ 
and  his  Apostles." 


MR.   INGERSOLL  AS  A  HERMENEUTIST.  151 

Comment — Whatever  it  may  have  been,  there  is  little 
of  the  literature  of  that  time  now  extant.  But  little  as 
it  is,  we  have  enough  to  prove  your  statement  false.  Jo- 
sephus  was  a  contemporary  of  the  Apostles.  He  was  born 
in  the  year  37.  In  my  last  article  I  quoted  his  testimony 
in  reference  to  Christ:  "  Now,  there  was  about  this  time 
Jesus,  a  wise  man,  if  it  be  lawful  to  call  him  a  man  *  * 
He  drew  over  to  him  many  of  the  Jews,  and  also  many 
of  the  Gentiles.     This  man  was  the  Christ,"  etc. 

Ingersoll — "  The  paragraph  in  Joseplius  is  admitted 
to  be  an  interpolation." 

Comment — No,  sir,  it  is  not  admitted,  nor  even  claimed, 
except  by  a  few  interested  critics  like  yourself.  Learned 
critics  have  demonstrated  that  this  paragraph  is  genuine, 
and  that  it  could  not  have  been  interpolated.  But  there 
is  still  another  passage  in  Josephus,  the  genuineness  of 
which  has  never  been  questioned  or  even  suspected. 

In  his  Antiquities,  Book  20,  chap.  9,  sec.  i,  he  says: 
"  Ananus  assembled  the  Jewish  Sanhedrim,  and  brought 
before  it  James,  the  brother  of  Jesus  who  is  called  Christ, 
with  some  others,  whom  he  delivered  over  to  be  stoned 
as  infractors  of  the  law."  The  James. here  spoken  of  was 
the  first  bishop  of  Jerusalem,  and  an  Aj^jostle. 

The  writings  of  Suetonius  are  contemporary  literature. 
This  author  was  born  in  the  year  72.  He  refers  to  Clirist 
when  he  says  that  Claudius  Caesar  expelled  the  Jews  from 
Rome,  because  they  raised  continual  tumults  at  the  in- 
stigatioti  of  Christy — ///  Claudio,  chap.  25. 

The  historian  Tacitus,  born  in  the  year  56,  says:  *'  The 
author  of  that  sect  (Christians)  was  Christ,  who,  in  the 
reign  of  Tiberius,  was  punished  with  death  as  a  criminal 


1^2  NOTES   ON    INGERSOLL. 

by  the  procurator  Pontius  Pilate." — Tacitus,  Annah^ 
Book  15,  chap.  44. 

Pliny  the  younger,  born  in  the  year  62,  in  his  celebrated 
letter  to  the  Emperor  Trajan,  says  that  Jesus  was  wor- 
shipped by  his  followers  as  God — "  They  sing  among 
themselves,  alternately,  a  hymn  to  Christ  as  to  God." 

Now,  sir,  in  view  of  these  testimonies,  what  are  we  to 
think  of  your  assertion  that  *'  there  is  not,  in  all  the  con- 
temporaneous literature  of  the  world,  a  single  word  about 
Christ  and  his  Apostles?"  And  what  will  the  reader 
think  of  your  character  for  veracity? 

Ingersoll — "  Neither  will  it  do  to  say  that  'the  state- 
ments made  by  the  Evangelists  are  alike  upon  every  im- 
portant point.'  " 

Comment — It  will  do  to  say  it,  because  it  is  true,  and 
because  you  have  given  no  evidence  to  the  contrary,  as 
we  shall  see. 

Ingersoll—'*  If  there  is  anything  of  importance  in  the 
New  Testament,  from  a  theological  stand-point,  it  is  the 
ascension  of  Christ." 

Comment — Granted. 

Ingersoll—"  Are  the  statements  of  the  inspired  wit- 
nesses alike  on  this  point?" 

Comment — Yes.  But  your  opponent  does  not  say 
"inspired  witnesses."  Christians  do  not  teach  that  the 
Apostles  were  inspired  witnesses  of  the  events  they  nar- 
rate. It  does  not  require  inspiration  to  witness  a  fact. 
This  is  an  illustration  of  your  art  in  changing  words  to 
introduce  into  the  question  false  ideas.  The  Ap9stles 
witnessed  the  events  in  the  life  of  Christ,  as  others  wit- 
nessed thern.     But  unlike  others,  they  were  inspirea  to 


THE    ASCENSION.  153 

give  a  narration  of  the  events  they  witnessed.  You  are 
fond  of  words  of  double  meaning.  They  give  room  for 
sophistry.  A  witness  may  mean  one  who  has  seen  an 
event  take  place,  or  it  may  mean  one  who  gives  testimony 
of  what  he  has  seen.  The  Evangelists  were  the  inspired 
narrators  of  what  they  witnessed.  I  mention  this  merely 
to  show  how  carefully  you  are  to  be  watched.  The  state- 
ments, then,  of  the  "inspired  witnesses"  are  alike  on  the 
ascension. 

Ingersoll — "Let  us  see." 

Comment — Certainly,  your  desire  for  information  is 
praiseworthy. 

Ingersoll — "Matthew  says  nothing  upon  the  subject." 

Comment — Your  opponent  said  the  statements  made 
by  the  Evangelists  were  alike,  etc.  He  said  nothing  of 
stitements  that  were  riot  made  by  this  or  that  Evangelist. 
Matthew's  history  ends  with  the  resurrection  and  the  com- 
mission of  the  Apostles,  and  does  not  extend  to  the  as- 
cension. 

Ingersoll — "To  this  wonder  of  wonders  Mark  de- 
votes one  verse:  '  So  then,  after  the  Lord  had  spoken 
unto  them,  he  was  received  up  into  heaven,  and  sat  on 
the  right  hand  of  God.'  " 

Comment — Is  not  one  verse  sufficient  to  state  an  im- 
portant fact?  You,  no  doubt,  would  have  devoted  many 
words  to  this  fact,  but  that  was  not  Mark's  style — he  was 
not  a  romancer.  The  difference  between  him  and  you  is 
this:  He  was  inspired  to  write  the  truth,  while  you  are 
not — at  least  your  writings  give  no  evidence  of  it. 

Ingersoll — "Luke,  another  of  the  witnesses,  says: 
'And  it  came  to  pass,  while  he  blessed  them,  lie  was  parted 
from  them  and  carried  up  into  heaven.'  " 


154  NOTES   ON    INGERSOLL. 

Comment — Well,  is  not  this  statement  and  that  of 
Mark  alike? 

Ingersoll — '*John  corroborates  Matthew,  by  saying 
nothing  on  the  subject." 

Comment — John  "corroborates"  St.  Matthew  by  say- 
ing: "And  no  man  hath  ascended  into  heaven,  but  he 
that  descended  from  heaven,  the  Son  of  Man,  who  is  in 
heaven." — John  iii.  13.  This  is  saying  something  on  the 
subject,  is  it  not?     Why  did  you  overlook  this  text? 

Ingersoll — *'  Now,  we  find  that  the  last  chapter  of 
Mark,  after  the  eighth  verse,  is  an  interpolation." 

Comment — Where  do  you  find  that?  You  have  said 
assertions  are  spurious  coins,  and  yet  you  would  palm 
your  *'  we  find"  on  your  reader  as  genuine  truth.  Now, 
"  we  find"  nothing  of  the  kind,  and  when  you  say  you 
have  found  it,  you  simply  take  a  dishonest  advantage  of 
your  ignorant  admirers.  That  they  deserve  no  better 
treatment  at  your  hands  is  no  excuse  for  you.  The 
verses  in  the  last  chapter  of  St.  Mark,  which  you  say  are 
interpolated,  are  found  in  almost  all  the  ancient  manu- 
scripts. The  most  ancient  of  the  fathers  admit  them,  as 
St.  Irenseus,  Tertullian,  St.  Clement,  St.  Ambrose,  St. 
Augustine,  and  others.  All  the  oldest  Latin,  Syriac,  and 
Arabic  copies  have  them.  They  must,  therefore,  be  con- 
sidered genuine  until  we  have  some  better  reason  for  re- 
jecting them  than  your  "we  find." 

Let  us  now  sum  up: 

Ingersoll — "(i)  Either  the  ascension  of  Christ  must 
be  given  up,  or  (2)  it  must  be  admitted  that  the  witnesses 
do  not  agree,  and  (3)  that  three  of  theiu  r.eveC  h«ard  of 
that  stupendous  event." 


THE  ASCENSION.  I55 

Comment — First.  The  ascension  of  Christ  will  not  be 
given  up.  It  should  never  have  been  believed  if  it  could 
be  overthrown  by  the  silly  trash  which  you  advance  as 
arguments. 

Second.  The  evidence  of  the  three  Evangelists  whom  I 
have  quoted  does  agree,  and  no  man  of  sense  and  unbi- 
assed judgment  will  pretend  to  the  contrary.  They  all 
bear  unequivocal  and  uncontradictory  evidence  to  the 
fact  of  the  ascension. 

Third.  There  are  only  four  Evangelists.  Three  of 
them  speak  of  the  ascension,  as  is  seen  by  the  above 
quotations.  Now  where  do  you  find  your  other  three 
who  never  heard  of  it? 

But  you  contradict  yourself.  According  to  your  reas- 
oning only  one  of  the  Evangelists  mentions  the  ascension; 
the  rest  are  silent,  or  never  heard  of  that  stupendous 
event.  Now,  if  only  one  of  four  witnesses  speak, 
how  can  they  contradict  each  other?  There  is  such  a 
thing  as  being  too  smart.  You  should  not  let  your  zeal 
for  godlessness  run  away  with  your  judgment.  The  con- 
clusion from  all  this  is  that  the  Evangelists  do  not  con- 
tradict each  other,  and  that  their  testimony  is  alike  on 
the  ascension. 

Ingersoll — "Again,  if  anything  could   have  left  its 
*  form  and  pressure  on  the  brain,'  it  must  have  been  the 
last  words  of  Christ." 
.  Comment — No  doubt  of  it.     What  then? 

Ingersoll — "  The  last  words,  according  to  Matthew, 
are:  *Go  ye,  therefore,  and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing 
them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of 
the    Holy   Ghost;  teaching   them  to  observe   all  things 


156  NOTES   ON    INGER^OLL. 

whatsoever  I  have  commanded   you:  and  lo,  I  am  with 
you  always,  even  to  the  end  of  the  world.'" 

Comment — Now,  these  are  not  the  last  words  of  Christ 
according  to  Matthew,  and  Matthew  does  not  say  they 
were  the  last  words.  Why  do  you  interpolate  into  the 
gospel  of  Matthew  a  statement  he  never  made?  Is  it 
through  stupidity,  or  ignorance,  or  a  desire  to  deceive  ? 
You  must  excuse  me,  but  I  must  talk  according  to  the 
facts:  your  statement  is  absolutely  false.  Matthew  does 
not  pretend  to  give  the  last  words  of  Christ.  The  words: 
Go  ye,  etc.,  are  simply  the  last  words  reported  by  Mat* 
thew. 

Ingersoll — *'  The  last  words,  according  to  the  inspired 
witness  known  as  Mark,  are:  'And  these  signs  shall  fol- 
low them  that  believe:  in  my  name  they  shall  cast  out 
devils,'"  etc. 

Comment — What  I  have  said  above  in  reference  to  the  " 
last  words  of  Matthew  are  equally  applicable  here.  St. 
Mark  does  not  report  these  words  as  the  last  utterances 
of  Christ.  They  are  simply  the  last  words  he  (Mark)  re- 
ports. You  can  be  excused  from  bad  faith  here  only  at 
the  expense  of  your  intelligence. 

Ingersoll — '*  Luke  tells  us  that  the  last  words  uttered 
by  Christ,  with  the  exception  of  a  blessing,  were:  '  And 
behold  I  send  forth  the  promise  of  my  Father  upon 
you,'  "  etc. 

Comment — Luke  tells  us  nothing  of  the  kind;  and  it 
is  hard  to  believe  that  you  did  not  know  you  were  mis- 
representing Luke^when  you  said  so.  You  must  have  an 
unlimited  faith  in  the  credulity  of  this  age,  and  in  the 
bottomless  ignorance  ©f  the  class   to  wlwch   you   appeal 


LAST    WORDS   OF    CHRIST.  I57 

when  you  make  such  a  statement.  It  is  not  at  all  sur- 
prising that  great  and  learned  Christian  theologians  do 
not  care  to  meet  you.  The  reason  of  their  silence  is  evi- 
dent to  men  of  sense.  It  is  not  their  duty  or  business  to 
turn  aside  to  meet  every  blatant  blasphemer  who  wags  his 
tongue  against  Christianity  for  dollars,  under  the  pre- 
tence of  being  a  philosopher.  They  decline  to  talk  with 
you  about  theology  on  the  same  principle  that  a  Marshall, 
a  Taney,  or  an  Evarts  would  decline  to  discuss  Common 
Law  or  the  Code  Justinian  with  a  mountebank. 

Ingersoll — ''The  last  words  according  to  John,  were: 
*  Peter,  seeing  him,  saith  to  Jesus:  Lord,  and  what  shall 
this  man  do?'  "  etc. 

Comment — It  is  needless  to  tell  the  reader,  aftef  what 
I  have  said  in  reference  to  your  falsifications  of  the  other 
Evangelists,  that  your  assertion  as  to  what  St.  John  says 
is  utterly  false  and  without  a  shadow  of  foundation.  You 
are  squandering  your  reputation  too  cheaply. 

Ingersoll — *'  An  account  of  the  ascension  is  also  given 
in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles;  and  the  last  words  of  Christ, 
according  to  that  inspired  witness,  are:  'But  ye  shall  re- 
ceive power,'"  etc. 

Comment— This  is  equally  as  false  as  what  you  have 
said  about  the  Gospels. 

Ingersoll — *'  Lake  testifies  that  Christ  ascended  on 
the  very  day  of  his  resurrection." 

Comment — l,uke  nowhere  testifies  that  Christ  ascended 
on  the  very  day  of  his  resurrection.  On  the  contrary,  he 
tells  us  in  his  Ac^s  of  the  Apostles,  that  "  He  (Christ) 
showed  himself  alive  after  his  passion,  by  many  proofs, 
for  forty  days   appearing  to  them  and  speaking  of  the 


T58  NOTES    ON    INGERSOLL, 

kingdom  of  God." — i.  3.  Here  Luke  testifies  explicitly 
as  to  the  time  of  the  ascension,  whereas  in  his  Gospel 
he  specifies  no  time. 

Ingersoll — "  These  depositions  do  not  agree." 

Comment — It  is  your  travesty  of  them  tliat  does  not 
agree.  The  depositions  are  alike  when  fairly  and  truth- 
fully represented. 

Ingersoll — "  Two  of  the  witnesses,  Matthew  and  Luke, 
give  the  genealogy  of  Christ.  Matthew  says  that  there 
were  forty-two  generations  from  Abraham  to  Christ. 
Luke  insists  that  there  were  forty-two  from  Cnrist  to 
David,  while  Matthew  gives  the  number  as  twenty-eight. 
It  may  be  said  that  this  is  an  old  objection.  An  objec-  • 
tion  remains  young  until  it  has  been  answered." 

Comment — It  is  indeed  an  old  objection,  and  in  this 
it  is  like  all  the  objections  you  have  made.  They  are  all, 
thus  far,  merely  the  old,  oft-repeated,  and  oft-answered 
ones  varnished  and  revamped  into  modern  parlance. 
They  lose  some  of  their  force  in  the  translation,  but 
what  they  lose  that  way  is  made  up  by  flippancy  and  ver- 
bal flummery. 

Your  objection  is  that  Matthew  and  Luke  contradict 
each  other  in  the  number  of  generations.  Generation  has 
two  meanings.  It  means  first,  the  actual  number  of  per- 
sons in  direct  line,  as  father,  son,  grand-son,  great-grand- 
son, etc.  Generation  in  this  sense  gives  us  no  measure  of 
time,  since  every  individual  in  the  above  series  may  have 
lived  from  twenty  to  five  hundred  years  or  more.  This 
kind  of  generation  is  therefore  of  no  use  whatever  in  cal- 
culcating  time  or  historical  epochs.  It  is  too  indefinite. 
It  is,  however,  of  use  to  prove  legitimacy,  and  the  right  of 


GENEALOGY.  159 

inheritance.  It  is  generation  in  this  sense  that  St.  Luke 
traces,  because  it  was  his  purpose  to  show  that  Christ  was 
of  the  direct  line  of  the  elder  branch  of  the  royal  family, 
and  that  he  was  the  person  who,  if  royalty  had  continued 
in  the  family  of  David,  would  have  legally  inherited  the 
throne.  Luke  was  dealing  with  the  question  in  reference 
to  legitimacy  and  inheritance — and  with  no  reference  to 
historical  times  or  epochs. 

The  second  meaning  of  generation  has  reference  to 
time  and  denotes  the  average  life  of  man,  which  at  present 
is  supposed  to  be  thirty-three  years.  As  men  lived  longer 
in  the  early  history  of  the  race  than  now,  the  average  life 
or  generation  was  much  longer.  Now  Matthew  uses  the 
word  generation  in  reference  to  time — to  the  average  dura- 
tion of  life  when  the  prophecies  concerning  the  coming 
of  Christ  were  written — to  prove  that  those  prophecies 
were  verified.  His  purpose  was  to  show  two  things;  first, 
that  the  time  announced  by  the  prophets  had  been  com- 
pleted at  the  advent  of  Christ,  and  second,  to  show  that 
Christ  was  of  the  royal  line  of  David.  Generations  of 
time  then,  in  the  sense  used  by  Matthew,  rnight  contain 
two,  three,  or  four  generations  of  individuals  \\\  the  sense 
of  Luke.  It  follows  then,  that  as  these  two  Evangelists 
were  writing  about  two  different  things  they  did  not  con- 
tradict each  other.  Luke  spoke  of  individual  life,  Matthew 
of  average  life. 

Ingersoll — "  Is  it  not  wonderful  that  Luke  and 
Matthew  do  not  agree  on  a  single  name  of  Christ's  an- 
cestors for  thirty-seven  generations?" 

Comment — It  is  wonderful  only  to  those  who  are 
ignorant  of   the   fact  that  Matthew  gives   the  ancestors 


l6o  NOTES   ON    INGERSOLL. 

of  Joseph,  wliile  Luke  gives  the  ancestors  of  Mary,  the 
Mother  of  God. 

Are  your  ancestors  on  your  mother's  side  all  Ingersolls? 
Must  your  maternal  and  paternal  ancestors  necessarily 
have  the  same  name?  A  careiul  study  of  Christian  writers 
on  these  subjects  would  save  you  a  good  deal  of  ignorant 
blundering. 

Ingersoll — "  There  *is  a  difference  of  opinion  among 
the  *  witnesses'  as  to  what  the  Gospel  of  Christ  is." 

Comment — I  think  the  reader  has  discovered  by  this 
time  that  it  is  not  safe  to  accept  your  statements  without 
proof  of  some  kind  to  verify  them.  Experience  has 
proved  that  something  more  than  your  word  is  necessary. 
You  must  specify  these  differences  of  opinion,  quote  the 
conflicting  texts,  and  give  their  references.  After  you 
have  done  this  it  will  be  time  to  consider  your  statement. 
We  have  had  enough  of  loose,  indefinite  declamation. 

Ingersoll — *' According  to  these  witnesses,  Christ  knew 
nothing  of  the  doctrine  of  Atonement." 

Comment — In  the  preceding  chapter  I  quoted  from 
those  three  witnesses  texts  referring  to  Atonement.  This 
was  in  answer  to  your  statement  that  those  Evangelists 
knew  nothing  about  that  dogma.  You  now  repeat  the 
same  idea  in  another  dress.  This  time  it  is  Christ  him- 
self who  knows  nothing  about  it,  and  you  give  as  evidence 
of  this  the  three  Evangelists,  whom  you  assert  never 
mentioned  the  subject!!  Now,  if  it  were  true  (as  it  is 
not)  that  these  Evangelists  never  referred  to  the  doctrine 
of  Atonement,  how  can  you  quote  them  as  witnesses  that 
Christ  knew  nothing  of  that  doctrine.'*  Your  statement 
is  false,  and  without  a  shadow  of  evidence  of  any  kind 


ATONEMENT.  l6l 

whatever  to  give  it  even  the  appearance  of  truth.  Is  this 
the  kind  of  stuff  you  expect  the  Christian  scholar  to  stoop 
to  meet? 

Ingersoll — ''  To  my  mind  the  failure  of  the  Evange- 
lists to  agree  as  to  what  is  necessary  for  man  to  do  to  in- 
sure the  salvation  of  his  soul,  is  a  demonstration  that  they 
were  not  inspired." 

Comment — It  would  be  a  demonstration  to  the  mind  of 
the  Christian  as  well,  if  there  was  any  such  failure  to 
agree  as  you  assert. 

If  the  Evangelists  disagreed,  or  conflicted  in  their  tes- 
timony, it  would  follow  that  they  were  not  all  inspired. 
But  thus  far  your  effort  to  prove  that  they  disagree  is  a 
miserable  failure.  If  you  have  nothing  better  to  offer 
than  what  you  have  already  given  to  prove  disagreement 
among  these  Evangelists,  your  case  is  in  a  bad  way  in- 
deed. 

Ingersoll — "  Neither  do  the  witnesses  agree  as  to  the 
last  words  of  Christ,  when  he  was  crucified." 

Comment — You  are  positive  about  this.  Now  let  us 
see. 

Ingersoll—**  Matthew  says  that  he  cried:  *  My  God, 
my  God,  why  hast  thou  forsaken  me?*" 

Comment — Does  Matthew  say  that  these  were  the  last 
words  of  Christ  ?  The  words  are  the  last  reported  by 
Matthew,  but  he  does  not  report  them  as  the  last  words 
of  Christ. 

Ingersoll — "Mark  agrees  with  Matthew." 

Comment — Then,  as  Matthew  reports  no  words  as  the 
last  spoken  by  Christ,  it  follows  that  Mark  did  not.  So 
much  for  your  "last  words"  thus  far. 


l62  NOTES    ON    INGERSOLL. 

Ingersoll — ''  Luke  testifies  that  his  last  words  were: 
*  Father,  into  thy  hands  I  commend  my  spirit.'" 

Comment — Luke  "  testifies"  to  nothing  of  the  kind. 
These  are  the  last  words  reported  by  Luke,  but  he  does 
not  report  them  as  the  last  words  of  Christ. 

Ingersoll — "John  states  that  he  cried:  "It  is  fin- 
ished.' " 

Comment — True,  but  he  does  not  state  that  these  were 
his  last  words.  The  fact  is,  none  of  the  Evangelists  re- 
port any  words  as  the  last  words  of  Christ.  It  is  at  best 
a  matter  of  inference  what  the  last  words  were.  There- 
fore when  you  quote  the  Evangelists  as  reporting  the 
last  words  of  Christ,  you  misrepresent  them;  and  the 
contradictions,  which  you  pretend  were  made  by  them, 
exist  only  in  your  ignorant  or  unprincipled  misrepresen- 
tations of  the  Gospels.  It  would  be  interesting  to  know 
by  what  code  of  morals  you  are  governed,  if  any.  Gau- 
tama, Confucius,  or  Koang~Foo-Tzee,  Zoroaster,  Lao- 
Tzsu,  Hermes  Trismegistus,  Moses  and  Mahomet,  all 
forbid  lying  in  their  moral  codes.  What  code  do  you 
follow,  anyhow? 

Ingersoll — "  John  says  that  Christ,  on  the  day  of  his 
resurrection,  said  to  his  disciples:  'Whosesoever  sins  ye 
remit,  they  are  remitted  unto  them,  and  whosesoever  sins 
ye  retain,  they  are  retained.'  The  other  disciples  do  not 
record  this  monstrous  passage." 

Comment — Tlie  other  disciples  do  not  record  this  pas- 
sage, eh?  Matthew  was  an  apostle  and  a  disciple  was  he 
not?  Well,  Matthew  says:  "Verily,  I  say  unto  you,  what- 
soever ye  shall  bind  on  earth  sliall  be  bound  in  heaven, 
and  whatsoever  ye  shall  loose  upon  earth  shall  be  loosed 


MISSION    OF    THE    APOSTLES.  1 63 

in  heaven." — xxviii.  18.  And  again:  "I  will  give  unto 
thee  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  and  whatsoever 
thou  shalt  bind  on  earth  shall  be  bound  in  heaven,"  etc. — 
xvi.  19. 

This  is  enough  to  prove  you  ignorant  or  dishonest,  and 
you  may  take  your  choice  of  position.  You  should  not 
forget  that  you  are  not  only  sacrificing  your  own  dignity 
and  veracity,  but  are  sacrificing  and  huml)ling  in  the 
dust,  so  far  as  one  man  can  do  it,  the  dignity  of  our 
common  manhood,  by  your  false,  foolish,  and  reckless 
statements. 

Ingersoll — "  They  (the  Apostles)  were  not  present 
when  Christ  placed  in  tiieir  hands  the  keys  of  heaven  and 
hell,  and  put  a  world  beneath  the  feet  of  priests." 

Comment — When  you  say,  "They  were  not  present 
when  he  placed  in  their  hands  the  keys,"  etc.,  you  intended 
to  perpetrate  one  of  those  side-splitting  jokes  which  are 
wont  to  set  your  audience  in  a  roar.  The  idea  of  their 
not  being  present  when  he  placed  in  their  hands  the  keys, 
is  droll,  when  we  come  to  think  of  it.  But  the  subject 
is  very  serious,  and  the  joke  is  out  of  place.  When  we 
want  to  enjoy  such  things  we  go  to  the  circus  or  to  the 
minstrels.  But  let  us  return.  You  say  that  that  com- 
mission which  Christ  gave  to  his  Apostles  to  pardon 
sinners  "puts  a  world  beneath  the  feet  of  priests."  Does 
the  power  of  pardoning  criminals,  which  is  reposed  in  the 
hands  of  the  governor,  place  the  people  of  this  State  at 
his  feet?  Reflect  on  this  for  a  moment,  and  you  will  learn 
that  there  is  more  sound  than  sense  in  your  observation. 


CHAPTER  XIX. 

CONTRADICTIONS — INGERSOLL's  METHOD  OF  ACCOUNTING 
FOR  THEM — HOW  TO  BE  SAVED — INGERSOLL's  NEW 
PATENT. 

INGERSOLL — "It  is  very  easy  to  account  for  the 
differences  and  contradictions  in  these  'depositions* 
by  saying  that  eacli  one  told  the  story  as  lie  remembered 
it,  or  as  he  heard  it,  or  that  the  accounts  have  been 
changed,  but  it  will  not  do  to  say  that  the  witnesses  were 
inspired  of  God."  *     • 

Comment — It  is  easy  to  account  by  *'  saying." — Yes, 
that  is  the  way  you  account  for  almost  everything.  It 
is  easy  indeed,  but  it  has  this  disadvantage,  it  does  not  ac- 
count for  everything.  It  has  been  the  misfortune  of 
your  theological  career  that  you  have  placed  too  much 
reliance  on  "  saying"  and  too  little  on  proving. 

It  will  be  time  to  account  for  the  contradictions  of  the 
Evangelists  when  those  contradictions  are  made  appar- 
ent. Thus  far  you  have  not  made  them  visible.  Hence 
your  cunning  method  of  accounting  for  them  by**  saying" 
is  gratuitous,  uncalled  for,  and  entirely  inconsistent  with 
Cliristian  principles.  Christianity  must  be  defended  by 
straight,  true,  and  correct  methods,  or  none.  It  cannot 
afford  to  be  defended  in  the  spirit  in  which  you  attack 
it.  It  must  not  use  sophistry,  or  cunning,  or  wit,  or  jokes, 
164 


Ii 


CONTRADICTIONS.  165 

or  lies.     Its  platform  is  truth,  and  if  that  ground  sinks  it 
must  go  under  with  it. 

Ingersoll — '*  Why  should  there  be  more  than  one  in- 
spired Gospel  ?" 

Comment — The  fad  that  there  were  four  inspired 
Gospels  written  is  sufficient  evidence  that  there  was 
reason  for  four.  God  does  not  act  without  reason.  But 
your  question  shows  that  you  do  not  understand  what  is 
meant  by  inspiration.  Kw inspired  history  is  not  neces- 
sarily a  complete  history.  The  inspiration  has  reference 
to  what  is  said  by  an  inspired  writer,  and  not  to  what  is 
not  safd  by  him. 

While  the  four  Gospels  are  inspired  histories,  they  are 
not  complete. and  full  narrations  of  all  the  events  and 
circumstances  of  Christ's  life  on  earth.  While  inspira- 
tion impelled  the  Evangelists  and  other  authors  of  the 
New  Testament  to  write,  and  protected  them  from  error 
in  writing,  it  did  not  impel  any  of  them  to  write  every- 
thing that  could  be  possibly  said  on  every  subject  of 
which  they  treated.  If  inspiration  meant  this  latter 
there  would  be  no  need  for  more  than  one  Gospel,  and 
there  would  be  some  sense  in  your  question:  but  as  it 
does  not  mean  this,  your  question  shows  that  while  you 
talk  glibly  about  inspiration  you  do  not  know  what  it 
means. 

A  history  of  the  United  States,  written  for  the  Chinese, 
for  instance,  must  be  different  from  one  written  for  the 
American  reader.  I  say  different,  not  contradictory. 
The  history  for  the  Chinese  must  take  no  common  Ameri- 
can or  Anglo-Saxon  tradition  as  granted.  It  must  state 
facts  and  circumstances  in  such  a  way  as  to  meet   their 


l66  NOTES    ON    INGERSOLL. 

thoughts.  To  do  this  requires  much  explanation.  Many 
things  must  be  said  that  need  not  be  said  in  a  history- 
written  for  the  American  reader.  This  is  so  evident  that 
further  illustration  is  unnecessary.  Now  carry  that  idea 
into  sacred  history,  and  you  will  see  a  sufficient  and 
satisfactory  reason  for  four  instead  of  one  inspired  Gospel. 
A  Gospel  written  for  the  Jews  would  merely  refer  to  facts, 
traditions,  prophecies,  customs,  and  habits  of  life,  etc., 
all  perfectly  familiar  to  them.  A  Gospel  written  for  the 
use  of  the  Gentiles  would  have  to  explain  many  things  of 
which  tliose  people  were  ignorant.  Again,  if  disputes 
arose  as  to  certain  points,  the  historian  would  naturally 
devote  more  attention  to  those  points  than  he  would  have 
done  had  the  disputes  not  arisen.  The  inspired  writers 
were  governed  by  these  considerations.  They  wrote  under 
different  circumstances  and  for  different  purposes;  and 
in  writing,  each  was  inspired  to  write  what  he  wrote,  and 
nothing  more. 

Matthew  wrote  for  the  Jews,  and  he  devoted  himself 
to  applying  to  Christ  the  prophecies  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment in  order  to  convince  the  Jews,  who  believed  them, 
that  Christ  was  the  Messiah — that  in  his  person  the  pre- 
dictions of  their  prophets  had  been  accomplished.  St. 
Mark  wrote  his  Gospel  for  the  Gentile  converts  at 
Rome.  His  object  was  to  prove  that  Christ  was  the 
Sovereign  Master  of  all  things,  and  he  therefore  devotes 
almost  all  his  chapters  to  a  recital  of  the  works  of  Christ, 
which  show  his  divine  power.  St.  Luke  wrote  his  Gospel 
more  particularly  for  Theophilus,  a  pagan  convert.  His 
design  was  to  prove  that  Jesus  of  Nazareth  is  the  true 
Saviour  of  men,  as  the  facts  and  circumstances  of  his  life 


CONTRADICTIONS.  167 

prove.  For  this  purpose  he  makes  known  certain  facts 
omitted  by  Matthew  and  Mark.  St.  John  wrote  his 
Gospel  to  refute  the  heresies  of  the  Corinthians,  Ebionites, 
and  Valentinians  who  attacked  the  divinity  of  Christ  and 
denied  many  of  his  acts  and  words  wliich  the  otlier 
Evangelists  had  omitted.  His  primary  object  was  to 
prove  the  divinity  of  Christ,  and  for  this  purpose  he  be- 
gins his  Gospel  with  these  sublime  words:  "  In  the  be- 
ginning was  the  Word,  and  ihe  Word  was  witli  God,  and 
the  Word  was  God."  The  Evangelists  then  differ  in 
their  recitals  according  to  the  different  circumstances  in 
which  they  wrote  and  the  objects  in  view. 

Ingersoll — "There  can  be  only  one  true  account  of 
anything." 

Comment — Tliere  can  be  as  many  true  accounts  of  an 
event  as  there  are  points  of  view  to  consider  the  event,  or 
circumstances  that  surround  it.  You  confound  true  with 
complete  or  adequate.  A  history  that  does  not  give  all 
the  events  and  circumstances  of  a  man's  life,  and  their 
relations  with  others,  is  true  history  if  its  statements  are 
true,  although  it  may  be  incomplete,  inadequate,  and  de- 
fective. The  four  Gospels  are  true  histories,  although 
none  of  them  are  complete,  for  none  of  them  give  ^//the 
events  in  the  life  of  Christ — in  fact,  all  of  them  taken 
together  do  not.  They  are  all  true,  different,  yet  not 
contradictory.  The  truth  of  a  history  depends  on  what 
it  says,  not  on  what  it  does  not  say.  When  I  say:  "Wash- 
ington was  born,  lived,  and  died,"  I  give  a  true  account. 
It  is  not  as  full,  complete  and  adequate  as  that  of  Irving 
or  Spark?,  but  it  is  as  true,  what  their  is  of  it.  You  may 
object   that  it   is  short,  which    I^  will  not  deny,  but  you 


l68  NOTES    ON    INGERSOLL. 

cannot  say  it  is  not  true.  You  simply  confound  true  vtth 
complete  or  adequate.  A  school-boy  writing  his  first 
composition  might  be  excused  for  an  improper  use  of 
adjectives,  but  a  philosopher  should  be  more  carefjal — or 
more  honest. 

Ingersoll — "That  which  is  a  test  of  truth  as  to  or- 
dinary witnesses  is  a  demonstration  against  their  inspira- 
tion." 

Comment — The  test  of  truth  in  the  case  of  ordinary 
witnesses  is  the  fact  of  their  agreement.  The  fact  that 
the  Evangelists  agree  in  the  statements  made  by  them 
is  evidence  of  their  truth,  just  as  it  is  in  the  case  of 
ordinary  witnesses.  Now,  how  the  evidence  of  their  ver- 
acity can  be  a  demonstration  against  their  inspiration  is 
difficult  to  understand.  You  have  said  if  they  disagree 
they  cannot  be  inspired,  and  you  are  right.  But  you  are 
not  satisfied;  you  now  try  to  prove  that  if  they  agree  they 
cannot  be  inspired.  Any  remarks  of  mine  on  this  reason- 
ing of  yours  would  only  draw  the  reader  from  a  con- 
templation of  its  sublimity.  So  wg  will  pass  in  silence  to 
other  points. 

Ingersoll — "My  doctrine  is  that  there  is  only  one 
way  to  be  saved,  and  that  is  to  act  in  harmony  with  your 
surroundings — to  live  in  accordance  with  the  facts  of 
your  being." 

Comment — Then  you  have  changed  your  ^'doctrine" 
considerably  since  you  began  your  article.  Your  "  doc- 
trine" in  the  first  part  of  it  was  that  there  is  no  God,  or 
at  least  that  we  cannot  know  whether  there  is  or  not; 
that  a  future  life  was  "  invented"  by  Christians  to  give 
God  a  chance  to    rectify  the  mistakes  of    this,     Your 


HOW    TO    BE    SAVED.  169 

"doctrine"  now  is  that  there  is  one  way  at  least,  to  be 
saved — it  is  "  to  act  in  harmony  with  your  surroundings." 
Well,  your  surroundings  are  certainly  Christian.  If  you 
lived' among  Mormons  you  should  be  a  Mormon;  if  in 
Turkey  you  should  have  a  harem  and  sit  cross-legged 
like  a  tailor;  if  among  Thugs  you  should  be  a  Thug;  if 
among  assassins,  an  assassin;  if  among  thieves,  a  thief! 
This  theory  ha^^  the  advantage  of  being  in  harmony  with 
the  '•'  elastic  cord  of  human  feeling." 

But  you  explain.  To  live  in  harmony  with  your  sur- 
roundings is  to  live — "  in  accordance  with  the  facts  of 
your  being."  Good.  This  is  precisely  what  Christianity 
demands  of  us.  But  what  are  the  facts  of  our  being? 
There's  the  rub.  This  question  brings  the  whole  con- 
troversy back  to  the  starting-point.  It  is  time  you  should 
understand  that  the  whole  question  between  you  and  the 
Christian,  as  well  as  between  the  heathen,  the  pagan,  the 
barbarian,  and  the  Christian,  is:  What  are  the  facts  of  our 
being?  This  question  is  the  root  or  foundation  of  all  the 
difference  of  opinion  that  ever  existed  in  the  world  as  to 
man,  his  duties  and  his  obligations.  It  is  the  question 
that  philosophers  in  all  ages  have  tried  in  vain  to  solve, 
and  which  the  Christian  believes  unaided  reason  cannot 
solve. 

What  am  I?  Whence  came  I?  Whither  am  I  drifting? 
Your  answer  to  these  questions  is:  I  do  not  know.  Your 
reply  is  true,  although  no  answer. 

It  is  a  common  understanding  among  men  of  sense  that 
when  a  man  confesses  ignorance  of  a  subject,  he  should 
not  force  himself  to  the  front  and  confuse  investigation 
by  his  ignorant,  garrulous  talk.     If  he  confessedly  knows 


lyo  NOTES   ON    INGERSOLL.  * 

nothing  of  the  subject  under  investigation,  it  is  incum- 
bent on  him,  as  a  man  of  sense,  to  hold  his  tongue.  Ig- 
norance is  no  disgrace  where  it  is  not  one's  own  fault, 
but  there  is  nothing  so  admirable  in  an  ignorant  man  as 
a  quiet  tongue  and  an  attentive  ear:  and  there  is  nothing 
more  pitiable  and  detestable  in  God's  universe  than  an 
ignorant  man  trying  to  play  the  role  of  a  teacher  of  man- 
kind. 

What  are  the  facts  of  our  being? 

It  is  the  mission  of  the  true  religion  to  answer  this  ques- 
tion. And  by  God's  help  it  has  been  answering  it  and 
dinning  it  into  the  ears  of  humanity,  as  it  surges  by,  gen- 
eration after  generation,  from  the  time  of  Adam  down 
to  the  year  of  our  Lord  1884,  and  it  will  continue  to  do 
so  until  the  angel  of  eternity  calls  the  muster-roll  of  time. 
Voltaires,.  Frerets,  Gibbons,  Diderots,  Paines  and  Inger- 
solls  will  appear  from  time  to  time  to  curse  the  moral 
world,  as  plagues,  small-pox,  leprosy,  and  insanity  have 
cursed  the  physical  world.  But  Christianity  is  destined 
to  survive  the  one,  as  the  human  race  survived  the  other. 


CHAPTER    XX. 

THE  HONEST  INFIDEL — THE  UPRIGHT  ATHEIST — LUNATICS 
AND  IDIOTS — JUDAS  ISCARIOT — HOW? 

INGERSOLL — "  For  the  honest  infidel,  according  to 
the  American  Evangelical  pulpit,  there  is  no  heaven." 

Comment — The  cook-book  says:  The  first  step  in 
cooking  a  hare  is  to  catch  it.  I  do  not  believe  any  in- 
fidel will  ever  be  damned  for  his  honesty.  I  have  no 
authority  to  speak  for  the  American  Evangelical  pulpit, 
but  I  suppose  if  it  could  be  convinced  o*f  the  ''honesty" 
of  an  infidel,  and  his  decency  in  the  other  respects,  it 
would  check  him  through  as  a  victim  of  defective  phrenal 
development. 

Ingersoll — "  For  the  upright  atheist  there  is  nothing 
in  another  world  but  punishment." 

Comment — The  upright  or  downright  atheist  will  no 
doubt  be  treated  as  the  upright  rebel  or  traitor  is  treated 
by  the  government  whose  laws  he  defies,  and  whose  au- 
thority he  rejects.  Christianity  teaches  that  God  loves 
the  honest  man,  that  he  will  never  punish  him  for  his 
honest  convictions;  it  teaches  also  that  God,  who  is  in- 
finitely wise,  knows  the  difference  between  an  honest  man 
and  a  loquacious  demagogue.  Christianity  teaches  that 
honesty  is  an  affair  of  the  heart  and  conscience,  and  not 

a  matter  of  word-spinning  or  gush. 

171 


172  .  NOTES   ON    INGERSOLL.  • 

Ingersoll — "  Mr.  Black  admits  that  lunatics  and  idiots 
are  in  no  danger  of  hell." 

Comment — That  should  be  consolation  to  many,  for  we 
are  told  that  the  number  of  fools  is  infinite. 

Ingersoll — "This  being  so,  his  God  should  have 
created  only  lunatics  and  idiots." 

Comment — He  has  in  his  inscrutable  ways  created  more 
than  we  poor  finite  creatures  can  understand  the  reason 
for,  and  he  permits  them  to  play  their  antics  before  high 
heaven  to  an  extent  that  can  be  explained  only  by  refer- 
ence to  his  infinite  patience. 

Ingersoll — "  Why  should  the  fatal  gift  of  brain  be 
given  to  any  human  being,  if  such  gift  renders  him  liable 
to  eternal  hell?" 

Comment — Reason  was  given  to  man  to  be  used,  not 
to  be  abused.  According  to  your  theory  no  man  should 
be  allowed  to  possess  anything  that  could  render  him 
liable  to  pain,  suffering  or  misfortune  of  any  kind.  Reflect 
for  a  moment  and  see  where  this  leads.  You  should  3iot 
be  trusted  with  a  pistol,  or  a  razor,  or  a  knife,  for  you 
might  blow  your  brains  out  with  one,  or  cut  your  throat 
with  the  others.  A  man  should  not  be  permitted  to  learn 
to  write  because  it  renders  him  liable  to  commit  forgery; 
his  hands  should  be  cutoff  because  they  render  him  liable 
to  steal  or  murder,  and  to  the  consequent  punishment. 
You  should  not  have  the  dangerous  liberty  of  eating,  lest 
you  might  eat  too  much  and  be  sick;  and  your  tongue 
should  be  dumb,  lest  you  might  be  liable  to  talk  nonsense 
or  commit  perjury.  What  would  you  think  or  say  of  (lOd 
if,  to  free  us  from  all  possible  danger,  he  should  deprive 
us  of  every  faculty  that  may  be  abused,  of  everything  that 


•  LUNATICS    AND    IDIOTS.  1 73 

constitutes  us  men — everything  that  makes  life  worth 
living? 

Ingersoll — "  Better  be  an  idiot  in  this  world,  if  you 
can  be  a  seraph  in  the  next." 

Comment — Better  be  an  idiot  saved  than  a  philosopher 
damned.  But  fortunately  for  men  of  common  average 
sense,  there  is  a  middle  course.  Idiots  and  philosophers 
are  extremes — phenomenal  and  exceptional.  The  major- 
ity of  mankind  are  neither,  while  they  are  sometimes  the 
victims  of  both. 

Ingersoll — "A  being  of  infinite  wisdom  has  no  right 
to  create  a  person  destined  to  everfesting  pain." 

Comment — Passing  the  question  of  right,  which  is  to 
no  purpose  here,  who  holds  that  God  created  any  being 
to  be  damned?  God  created  man  to  enjoy  happiness 
forever,  and  no  man  will  be  damned  but  he  who  damns 
himself. 

Ingersoll — "  For  nearly  two  thousand  years  Judas 
Iscariot  has  been  execrated  by  mankind;  and  yet,  if  the 
doctrine  of  the  Atonement  is  true,  upon  his  treachery 
hung  the  plan  of  salvation." 

Comment — Judas  is  justly  execrated  because  he  was  a 
traitor  and  gave  away  his  friend.  His  treason  has  noth- 
ing to  do  with  the  doctrine  of  Atonement.  Judas  was  a 
free  agent.  The  plan  of  salvation  involved  the  death  of 
Christ,  but  not  by  the  treason  of  Judas. 

Ingersoll — "Suppose  Judas  had  known  of  this  plan — 
known  that  he  was  selected  by  Christ  for  that  very  pur- 
pose, that  Christ  was  depending  on  him." 

Comment — Suppose  that  he  was  not  selected  for  this 
very   purpose;    that  Christ  was  7iot  depending  on  him. 


174  NOTES   ON    INGERSOLL. 

Where  did  you  learn  that  Judas  was  selected  for  this  very 
purpose,  or  that  Christ  depended  on  him? 

Ingersoll — "And  suppose." 

Comment — No,  sir;  we  must  suppose  nothing.  I  want 
facts,  and  not  suppositions  or  guesses. 

Ingersoll — "Are  you  willing  to  rely  upon  an  argu- 
ment that  justifies  the  treachery  of  that  wretch  (Judas)?" 

CoMMEr^T — No,  I  am  not,  any  more  than  I  am  ready 
to  rely  upon  your  assertions.  Judas  was  a  bad  man,  but 
there  are  worse  men  living  than  he.  He  did  not  go  lectur- 
ing about  Judea,  boasting  of  his  crime,  and  ridiculing  the 
Christ  whom  he  had  betrayed — he  went  and  hanged  him- 
self. I  do  not  commend  his  desperate  act,  because  suicide 
is  murder,  but  the  fellow  showed  some  respect  for  the 
opinions  of  his  fellow-men  by  ridding  them  of  his  detesta- 
ble presence.  He  loved  money,  but  in  this  he  was  not 
alone.  There  were  no  lecture  bureaus  in  those  days,  and 
he  felt  that  his  career  was  at  an  end.  Had  he  known 
that  others  would  come  to  continue  his  work  he  might 
have  been  terrified,  and  perhaps  repented,  but  not  fore- 
seeing this  he  only  hanged  himself. 

Ingersoll — "  I  insisted  upon  knowing  how  the  suffer- 
ings of  an  innocent  man  could  satisfy  justice  for  the  sins 
of  the  guilty." 

Comment — It  would  have  been  wiser  to  have  insisted 
upon  knowing  \.V.q  fact  than  upon  knowing  the  how  of  it. 
There  are  many  facts  that  you  know  and  admit,  and  yet 
if  you  were  asked  the  ho7u  of  them  you  could  not  answer. 
How  do  you  think?  How  do  you  apprehend  a  thought? 
How  do  you  know  that  you  are,  or  that  you  are  Ingersoll? 
Would  it  be  just  to  infer  that  you  know  nothing  because 


JUSTICE.  175 

you  cannot  explain  "how"  you  know!  This  is  precisely 
what  you  expect  of  your  opponent.  You  ask,  how  can 
the  sufferings  of  the  innocent  satisfy  for  the  sins  of  the 
guilty?  Your  opponent  replies  by  saying  that  the  answer 
involves  a  question  of  metaphysics.  He  is,  in  my  opinion, 
wrong  in  this,  because  he  confounds  the  supernatural 
with  the  metaphysical.  These  terms  are  not  synonyms. 
To  answer  your  question  he  had  no  need  to  appeal  to 
metaphysics;  in  doing  so  he  appealed  to  the  wrong  court. 
His  appeal  should  have  been  to  reason;  he  should  have 
confined  himself  to  the  fact,  or  the  possibility  of  it,  and 
not  to  the  how  of  it.  We  don't  know  the  "how"  of  any- 
thing; and  the  phitesopher  who  asks  it  and  expects  an 
adequate  answer  is  nothing  better  than  an  end  man  in  a 
minstrel  show.  Conundrums  are  associated  with  tam- 
bourine and  burnt  cork.  Lecturers  who  make  pretensions 
to  philosophy  should  not  infringe  on  the  amusing  trade 
of  honest  minstrelsy. 

Ingersoll— "  I  insisted  upon  knowing  how  the  suffer- 
ings of  an  innocent  man  can  satisfy  justice  for  the  sins 
of  the  guilty." 

Comment — Logicians  tell  us  that  most  disputes  and 
misunderstandings  arise  from  an  abuse  or  misuse  of  words 
— the  common  symbols  of  thought.  Honest  words  are 
often  drafted  into  the  service  of  sophistry  and  made  to 
do  duty  under  false  colors.  The  art  of  refuting  fallacies 
consists  mainly  in  liberating  these  words  from  enforced 
service.  The  only  difficulty  in  your  question  arises  from 
the  use  or  misuse  of  the  word  justice.  Until  that  word 
is  made  to  express  a  definite  idea  common  to  your  mind 
and  mine,  your  question  is  unintelligible,  and  not  sus- 


176  NOTES   ON    INGERSOLL. 

ceptible  of  an  intelligent  answer.  If  I  should  give  an 
answer  based  on  some  one  of  the  many  meanings  of  the 
word,  it  might  not  be  the  meaning  which  you  attach  to  it, 
and  hence  my  answer,  right  or  wrong,  could  not  meet 
your  thought,  or  the  difficulty  as  it  exists  in  your  mind. 
This  shows  with  what  great  care  intelligent  men  should 
use  words. 

What  then  do  you  mean  by  the  word  justice  as  used 
in  your  question?  Do  you  mean  justice  in  the  abstract? 
Justice  in  abstract  is  a  mere  abstraction,  having  no  entity 
of  its  own.  A  pure  abstraction  can  induce  no  obligations, 
no  duties,  no  sufferings  of  innocent  or  guilty. 

Do  you  mean  what  theologians  call  original  justice? 
Original  justice  is  the  subjection  of  the  body  to  the  mind, 
the  subjection  of  the  will  to  reason,  and  the  subjection 
of  reason  to  God.  This  is  the  justice  that  was  lost  by 
Adam's  fall  and  restored  by  the  sufferings  of  Christ. 

Do  you  mean  divine  justice.^  That,  so  far  as  creatures 
are  practically  concerned,  is  the  will  of  God,  and  he  is 
free  to  determine  the  nature  of  atonement. 

Do  you  mean  justice  in  its  theological  sense?  In  that 
sense  it  is  a  moral  virtue  or  influence  constantly  inclining 
the  will  of  man  to  render  to  every  one  his  own.  This 
meaning  can  have  no  application  to  your  question. 

Do  you  mean  legal  justice?  Legal  justice  is  that  which 
co-orders  the  parts  or  individuals  of  a  community  in  refer- 
ence to  the  whole,  and  inclines  the  individual  to  render 
to  the  community  what  is  necessary  for  the  common  good. 

Do  you  mean  distributive  justice?  This  directs  the  whole 
in  reference  to  its  parts — the  community  in  its  action  to- 
wards the  individual; 


JUSTICE.  iyf 

There  remain  commuiaiive  justice,  which  regulates  the 
actions  of  the  citizen  to  his  fellow-citizen,  and  vindicative 
justice,  by  which  the  superior  visits  punishment  on  the 
guilty.  You  see  the  word  justice  has  many  meaninj^s. 
As  you  are  a  theologian,  philosopher,  and  lawyer,  you 
should  be  able  to  say  in  what  sense  you  use  the  word,  and 
you  must  not  imagine  your  opponent  t®  be  fool  enough 
to  commit  himself  to  any  answer  till  he  knows  what  you 
ask. 

The  fallacy  of  your  question  consists  in  this:  It  sup- 
poses justice  to  be  a  thing  existing  independent  of  God 
and  man,  whereas  it  is  an  attribute,  in  different  degrees, 
of  both  God  and  man,  and  has  no  existence  outside  of 
them. 

But  I  am  not  done  with  your  question  yet.  You  ask: 
How  can  the  sufferings  of  the  innocent  satisfy  for  the  sins 
of  the  guilty?  What  do  you  mean  by  "  satisfy?"  Do 
you  mean  it  in  the  sense  of  an  equivalent?  If  so,  no  suf- 
ferings of  the  innocent  or  the  guilty  can  satisfy  for  sin; 
for  suffering,  whether  voluntary  or  enforced,  is  not  an 
equivalent  or  an  equation  of  sin.  The  murderer  does 
not  "satisfy"  either  God  or  man  by  yielding  up  his  life 
at  the  end  of  a  rope;  nor  would  a  volunteer  substitute 
"satisfy."  His  death  is  no  equivalent  for  his  crime.  If 
sufferings  were  an  equation  of  crime,  crime  would  cease 
to  be  crime  to  him  who  accepts  the  punishment.  The 
murderer  would' cease  to  be  a  murderer,  the  thief  cease 
to  be  a  thief  on  the  infliction  of  punishment.  If  suffer- 
ing alone  could  "  satisfy"  for  sin,  there  would  and  could 
be  no  eternal  hell,  for  a  time  would  necessarily  come 
when  the  suffering  wowld  square  with  the  offence.     Mere 


1^8  NOTES    ON    INGERSOLL. 

suffering,  then,  of  innocent  or  guilty,  does  not  satisfy 
for  sin;  and  this  fact  takes  the  bottom  out  of  your  ques- 
tion. 

Again.  You  ask:  How  can  the  sufferings  of  the  innocent 
satisfy  for  the  sins  of  the  guilty?  The  mere  sufferings  alone 
of  the  innocent  do  not  satisfy  for  the  sins  of  the  guilty, 
They  can,  however,  satisfy  for  the  sufferings  due  the  sins 
of  the  guilty,  which  is  quite  another  thing.  You  can  pay 
a  fine  of  five  dollars  for  a  loafer  who  has  committed  an 
assault,  and  save  him  the  sufferings  of  six  months  in  the 
workhouse;  but  while  your  vicarious  sufferings  to  the 
extent  of  five  dollars  remit  the  punishment,  they  do  not 
"satisfy"  for  the  offence.  I  think  by  this  time  the  reader 
sees  that  the  question  upon  which  you  "  insisted"  means 
nothing  when  cleared  and  cleaned  of  its  sophistry  and 
words  of  double  meaning.  Mr.  Black  was  wrong  when 
he  said  it  raised  a  "metaphysical  question."  He  should 
have  said  it  raised  a  psychological  or  phrenological  ques- 
tion involving  the  condition  of  your  mind  or  brain,  when 
you  asked  it. 

Ingersoll — "To  answer  an  argument,  is  it  only  neces- 
sary to  say  that  it  raises  a  metaphysical  question?" 

Comment— No;  but  a  question,  to  deserve  an  answer, 
should  have  some  sense  in  it. 


CHAPTER  XXr. 

MULISH    STUBBORNNESS    VERSUS     RATIONAL    OBEDIENCE — 

STANDARD  OF    RIGHT    AND    WRONG,  WHAT    IS    IT? MR. 

INGERSOLL's  FOOT-LIGHT    DEFINITIONS  WORTHLESS — IS 
MURDER  A  CRIME  OR  A  VIRTUE? 

INGERSOLL — "  The  idea  of  non-resistance  never  oc- 
curred to  a  man  who  had  the  power  to  protect  him- 
self. This  doctrine  is  the  child  of  weakness,  born  when 
resistance  was  impossible." 

Comment — This  is  one  of  your  soft,  indefinite  gener- 
alities. Let  us  see  what  it  means  and  what  it  is  worth 
practically. 

Non-resistance  to  what?  Resistance  or  non-resistance 
has  place  only  where  there  is  aggression.  Aggression 
may  be  just  or  unjust,  and  the  lawfulness  of  resistance 
to  it  depends  on  this  distinction.  Aggression  is  any 
infringement  whatever  on  your  natural  rights.  Your 
natural  rights  are  necessarily  limited  or  infringed  on  by 
society.  The  individual  must  yield  to  society  many  of 
his  natural  rights  for  the  common  good.  Without  this, 
society  would  be  impossible.  Society  is  necessary  for 
human  life,  for  man  is  a  social  being,  and  cannot  live 
out  of  society.  Therefore  the  aggression  which  society 
makes  on  the  natural  rights  of  the  individual  is  just,  and 
therefore  the  individual  vields  them  up,  not  because  he 

179 


l8o  NOTES   ON    INGERSOLL. 

must^  but  because  he  ought  to.  It  is  a  question  of  duty. 
Now  society  aggresses  on  your  natural  rights  for  the 
common  good.  You  yield  because  you  consider  the 
benefit  you  derive  from  living  in  society  a  fair  set-off  to 
the  rights  which  you  give  up.  You  do  not  resist,  because 
common  sense  tells  you  you  would  be  wrong  if  you  did. 
Then  the  idea  of  non-resistance  must  have  occurred  to 
you,  otherwise  you  would  not  consent  to  the  arrangement. 
Again.  Society,  to  exist,  must  have  government,  which 
costs  money.  To  meet  the  expenses  the  tax  collector  ag- 
gresses on  you.  You  feel  that  the  demand  is  just,  and 
you  yield  and  pay,  not  because  you  know  you  can  be 
made  to  pay,  but  because  you  know  you  ought  to — here 
again  the  idea  of  non-resistance. 

The  idea  of  non-resistance  occurs  to  every  honest  man 
who  lives  in  society,  and  who  believes  it  his  duty  to  obey 
the  laws  and  support  his  government.  Woe  to  that 
government  whose  citizens  obey  only  because  they  must, 
or  because  they  cannot  protect  themselves  against  the 
power  that  enforces  law.  Such  citizens  cannot  be  trusted 
in  time  of  danger.  They  are  latent  rebels,  every  one  of 
them.  Resistance  to  the  just  requirements  of  law  is  sin- 
ful, and  non-resistance  a  duty.  Hence  the  idea  of  it 
should  and  does  occur  to  every  honest,  loyal  citizen. 

You  will  say  that  you  meant  non-resistance  to  unjust 
power  or  tyranny.  Probably  you  did.  But  you  did  not 
say  it,  and  a  man  of  your  power  of  talk  is  expected  to  say 
what  he  means. 

Ingersoll— "  I  do  not  believe  in  the  doctrine  of  non- 
resistance." 

Comment — Non-resistance  to  what?     As  you  reject  the 


TtiE   STANDARD    OF    RIGHT    AND    WRONG.  t3l 

doctrine  of  non-resistance  without  limitation,  it  follows 
that  you  hold  the  opposite  doctrine  without  limitation, 
which  is  that  you  believe  in  resistance  to  everything.  But 
you  are  not  original  in  this.  The  world  is  familiar  with 
men  of  this  kind,  and  has  provided  for  them  as  comforta- 
bly as  circumstances  will  permit. 

Ingersoll — "Mr.  Black  insists  that  without  belief  in 
God  there  can  be  no  perception  of  right  and  wrong 
and  that  it  is  impossible  for  an  atheist  to  have  a  con- 
science." 

Comment — Mr.  Black  makes  no  such  statement — in- 
sists on  neither  of  the  things  which  you  attribute  to  him. 
Why  this  persistent  misrepresentation?  To  give  the  reader 
an  idea  of  your  sense  of  "honor  bright,"  and  your  method 
of  meeting  an  opponent,  I  will  here  quote  Mr.  Black's 
words  on  this  point.  He  says:  "  Here  let  me  call  atten- 
tion to  the  difficulty  of  reasoning  about  justice  with  a  man 
who  has  no  ack7iowledged  standard  of  right  and  wrong. 
What  is  justice?  That  which  accords  with  law;  and  the 
supreme  law  is  the  will  of  God.  But  I  am  dealing  with 
an  adversary  who  does  not  admit  that  there  is  a  God; 
then  for  him  there  is  no  standard  at  all;  one  thing  is  as 
right  as  another,  and  all  things  are  equally  wrong.  .  With- 
out a  sovereign  ruler  there  is  no  law,  and  where  there  is 
no  law  there  can  be  no  transgression.  It  is  the  misfortune 
of  the  atheistic  theory  that  it  makes  the  moral  world  an 
anarchy,  it  refers  all  ethical  questions  to  that  confused 
tribunal  where  chaos  sits  as  umpire,  and  *  by  decision 
more  embroils  the  fray.'  But  through  the  whole  of  this 
(Ingersoll's)  paper  there  runs  a  vein  of  presumptuous 
egotism  which  says  as  plainly  as  words  can  speak  it  that 


l82  NOTES   ON    INGERSOLL. 

the  author  holds  hwiself  to  be  the  ultimate  judge  of  all 
good  and  evil;  what  he  approves  is  right,  and  what  he 
dislikes  is  certainly  wrong.  Of  course  I  concede  nothing 
to  a  claim  like  that." — North  American  Review  for  Augusty 
\%Z\,page  135. 

This  is  the  only  paragraph  in  your  opponent's  article 
referring  to  this  subject.  Where  does  he  insist  that  with- 
out a  belief  in  God  there  can  be  no  perception  of  right 
and  wrong,  or  that  it  is  impossible  for  an  atheist  to  have 
a  conscience?  There  is  no  mention  of  perception  of  right 
and  wrong — no  mention  of  conscience  in  the  whole 
paragraph.  He  says  that  you,  denying  God,  have  no 
standard  of  right  and  wrong.  Now  it  does  not  require 
much  brains  or  education  to  distinguish  between  a  per- 
ception of  right  and  a  standard  of  right.  A  perception 
of  right  is  as  different  from  the  standard  of  right  as  the 
perception  of  length  is  from  a  yardstick  by  which  length 
is  measured.     Your  next  statement  illustrates  this: 

Ingersoll — "  Mr.  Black,  the  Christian,  the  believer  in 
God,  upholds  wars  of  extermination.  I  denounce  such 
wars  as  murders." 

Comment — Now  how  is  this  difference  of  opinion  be- 
tween you  and  Mr.  Black  to  be  determined?  Your  con- 
science tells  you  that  such  wars  are  murders;  his  con- 
science tells  him  the  contrary.  Whose  conscience  teaches 
the  right?  His  opinion  of  right  and  wrong  is  evidently 
different  from  you-f>=  Which  of  you  is  right?  And  how 
is  it  to  be  determined?  He  will  net  y'^^ld  his  judgment 
to  yours;  you  will  not  yield  yours  to  his.  What  is  to  Hie 
done?  Will  you  appeal  to  reason?  But  his  reason  ana 
yours  have  already  drawn  their  conclusions,  and  they  are 


THE    STANDARD    OF    RIGHT    AND    WRONG.  183 

opposed  to  each  other.  Will  you  appeal  to  force?  Then 
might  makes  right.  Then  slavery  is  right  as  long  as  it 
can  be  enforced:  and  polygamy  is  right  in  Turkey,  and 
in  Utah,  since  it  prevails  in  those  places,  and  that  which 
prevails  has,  for  the  time  at  least,  the  superior  force  be- 
hind it.  Do  you  appeal  to  popular  sentiment?  If  so, 
polygamy  is  right  in  Turkey  and  Utah,  since  popular 
sentiment  is  in  its  favor;  and  for  the  same  reason  slavery 
was  right  in  the  south.  All  these  appeals  failing  to  solve 
the  difficulty,  you  and  your  opponent  must  fix  upon  a 
standard  or  measure,  or  norm  of  right  and  wrong. 

To  illustrate  Black's  idea  more  clearly,  let  us  suppose 
that  the  difference  of  opinion  between  you  and  him  is  in 
reference  to  the  length  of  a  piece  of  cloth.  You  hold  it 
is  fifty  yards  long;  he  that  it  is  only  ten.  It  cannot  be 
determined  by  loud  talk  or  eloquent  denunciation.  You 
must  both  appeal  to  a  common  measure  known  to  and 
admitted  by  both  of  you — a  yardstick,  for  instance.  The 
measure  is  applied  to  the  cloth,  and  its  actual  length  is 
determined.  It  was  the  want  of  a  common  measure  or 
standard  like  this  that  Mr.  Black  called  attention  to  as 
an  insurmountable  obstacle  in  debating  ethical  questions 
with  you.  He  had  a  standard,  the  will  of  God;  you 
have  none.  Between  him  and  you,  then,  there  is  no 
common  standard,  and  hence  the  difficulty  of  arguing  with 
you. 

Ingersoll — *'  Yet  I  am  told  that  I  have  no  knowledge 
of  right  and  wrong." 

Comment — Until  you  have  a  criterion,  or  standard  of 
right  and  wrong,  you  cannot  determine  what  is  right  or 
what   is  wrong;  and  as  long  as  you  cannot  do  this,  you 


1^4  NOTES   ON   INGEl^SOLt.  s 

cannot  claim  knowledge  on  the  subject.  You  may  have 
"notions"  or  "opinions,"  but  knowledge  you  cannot 
claim. 

Ingersoll — "What  is  right,  or  what  is  wrong?" 

Comment — That  cannot  be  determined  without  a  stand- 
ard or  common  measure,  no  more  than  the  question, 
what  is  lawful,  can  be  answered  without  a  knowledge  of 
■what  is  law. 

Ingersoll — "  Everything  is  right  that  tends  to  the 
happiness  of  mankind." 

Comment — Granted.  But  who  is  to  determine  what 
tends  to  the  happiness  of  mankind?  Is  every  action  of 
your  life  governed  by  that  vague  rule?  Do  you,  before 
performing  an  act,  pause  to  reflect  whether  that  act,  in 
the  long  run,  in  all  the  eventualities  of  human  existence 
here  and  hereafter,  will  tend  in  the  general  sum  to  the 
happiness  of  mankind?  Of  course  you  don't.  Such  a 
calculation  is  beyond  the  power  of  man,  hence  your  defini- 
tion of  right  is  vain  and  profitless. 

Ingi!rsoll — "  And  everything  is  wrong  that  increases 
the  sum  of  human  misery." 

Comment — Certainly,     But  who  is  to  determine  which 
of  all  and  every  act  of  his  increases  the  sum  of  human 
misery?     Your  definition  of  wrong  is  as  vague  and  un- 
satisfactory as  your  definition  of  right. 
■  Ingersoll — "What  is  conscience?" 

Comment — From  the  answer  you  give  to  your  own 
question  it  is  evident  that  you  do  not  know  what  it  is,  and 
I  will  therefore  give  you  a  definition  of  it  as  understood 
by  Christians.  Conscience  is  a  practical  judgment  which 
passes  on  each  and  every  act  of  our  life,  and  determines. 


HIS   DEFINITIONS    WORTHLESS.  185 

before  we  perform  the  act,  whether  it  is  right  or  wrong. 
It  does  not  determine  what  is  right  or  wrong  in  the  ab- 
stract— that  is  the  ofifice  of  the  moral  intellect.  It  is  not 
the  power  of  realizing  vividly  the  sufferings  of  others,  as 
you  dogmatically  state.  The  word  for  that  is  sympathy^ 
or  philanthropy,  not  conscience. 

Jngersoll — "  Consequences  determine  the  quality  of 
an  action." 

Comment — This  then  is  your  standard  by  which  to 
determine  whether  a  human  act  is  good  or  evil,  wicked 
or  holy.  It  is  a  remarkable  coincidence  that  the  assassin 
of  President  Garfield  justified  his  act  on  this  very  prin- 
ciple. His  last  words  on  the  scaffold  were:  ''Only  good 
has  come  from  it." 

Let  us  examine  this  standard  and  see  what  it  means, 
and  what  it  is  practically  worth.  According  to  this  stand- 
ard or  criterion,  the  quality  of  a  human  act  cannot  be 
determined  until  all  its  consequences  are  known.  But 
the  full  and  ultimate  consequences  of  no  act  can  be  known 
by  man,  for  the  consequences  of  an  act  become  in  their 
turn  the  causes  of  other  acts,  whose  consequences  are  the 
causes  of  other  acts  still,  and  thus  on  indefinitely.  To 
determine  the  quality  of  an  act,  one  must  know  whether 
the  sum  of  all  these  consequences  is  good  or  bad;  or,  if 
any  one  consequence  can  indicate  the  nature  of  the  act, 
it  is  necessary  to  know  which  of  this  almost  limitless 
multitude  of  effects  is  the  one  which  does  so.  Now, 
•no  man  can  know  this;  and  hence,  according  to  your 
criterion,  no  man  can  know  the  nature  of  any  given  act. 
Your  standard  then  affords  man  no  practical  information 
as  to  the  nature  of  any  act  which  he  may  be  called  upon 
to  perform.     It  is,  therefore,  utterly  worthless. 


1 86  NOTES   ON    INGERSOLL. 

Again:  even  if  it  were  granted  that  consequences  de- 
termine the  quality  of  an  action,  the  difificuity  still  remains, 
for  what  or  who  is  to  determine  the  quality  of  these  con- 
sequences themselves? 

Ingersoll — "If  consequences  are  good,  so  is  the 
action." 

Comment — According  to  this  dictum,  you  cannot  saj 
a  cold-blooded  murder  or  an  assassination  is  good  or  bad 
until  you  have  learned  the  consequences  of  it!  The  con- 
sequences of  Garfield's  taking  off  can  never  be  known  to 
man.  Then,  according  to  your  philosophy,  it  can  never 
be  known  whether  his  murder  was  a  crime  or  a  virtue! 
Are  you  not  afraid  that  your  philosophy  may  put  a  bee 
into  the  head  of  some  religious  fanatic,  who,  misled  by 
your  teachings,  might  consider  his  killing  pf  you  a  virtu- 
ous and  holy  act,  foolishly  imagining  that  the  result  of  it 
might,  in  its  consequences,  prove  beneficial  to  society  and 
religion?  I,  as  a  Christian,  condemn  that  act  beforehand, 
as  a  crime  deserving  the  eternal  torments  of  hell;  but  you 
cannot  consistently  condemn  it,  because,  according  to 
your  infidel  theory,  the  act  cannot  be  said  to  be  evil  or 
wicked  till  its  consequences  are  known.  As  the  conse- 
quences of  your  death  cannot  be  known,  it  follows  that 
your  murder  might  be  a  good  or  bad  act!  This  is  the 
result  or  consequence  of  your  philosophy.  From  a  Chris- 
tian point  of  view  it  is  a  very  bad  consequence,  and  there- 
fore, if  there  is  any  virtue  in  logic,  your  philosophy  is  bad. 
The  Christian  holds  not  only  that  murder  is  a  crime,  but 
that  even  the  intention,  determination  or  unactuated  re- 
solve is  a  crime,  deserving  of  hell.  It  is  thus  that  the 
Christian  religion  strikes  at  the  very  root  of  this  murder- 


IS   MURDER    A    CRIME?  787 

ous  propensity  in  man,  and  kills  the  dragon  before  he 
issues  from  his  innermost  den  i-n  the  human  heart.  The 
doctrine  that  acts  take  their  nature  and  quality  from  their 
results  is  a  logical  and  necessary  consequence  of  the 
denial  of  God.  It  destroys  individual  responsibility  and 
is  subversive  of  all  government  and  social  order.  It 
denies  all  appeal  to  right,  and  destroys  not  only  justice^ 
but  the  very  idea  of  it.  It  contemplates  nothing  but  re- 
sults— physical,  cognizable  results. 


CHAPTER  XXII. 

ACTIONS  AND  THEIR  CONSEQUENCES — EXPERIENCE  NO 
STANDARD  OF  RIGHT  AND  WRONG — SOME  OF  MR.  INGER- 
SOLL's  PLAUSIBLE  NONSENSE — HIS  CHARACTER  IN  A 
FOCUS — A  CHALLENGE  TO  THE  GLIB  LITTLE  WHIFFETS 
OF  THE  INGERSOLL  SCHOOL. 

INGERSOLL — "  If  actions  had  no  consequences,  they 
would  be  neither  good  nor  bad." 

Comment — Whicli  is  the  same  assaying  if  actions  were 
not  actions  they  would  not  be  actions.  Actions  are  as 
inseparable  from  consequences  as  they  are  from  their 
actors.  You  can  no  more  imagine  an  act  witliout  a  con- 
sequence than  you  can  an  act  without  an  actor.  In  fact, 
the  consequences  of  acts  are  simply  the  acts  themselves 
continued  under  new  forms.  But  while  every  act  has 
consequences,  it  does  not  follow,  as  we  have  seen,  that  it 
takes  its  quality  from  those  consequences. 

Ingersoll — "Man  did  not  get  his  knowledge  of  con- 
tsequences  of  actions  from  God,  but  from  experience  and 
reason." 

Comment — As  man  has  not  an  adequate  knowledge  of 

all  the  consequences  of  actions,  it  follows  that  he  did  not 

get  it  from  experience  and  reason;  and  no  Christian  ever 

held  that  man  g^ets  his  knowledge  of  consequences  of 

i88 


ACTIONS    AND    THEIR    CONSEQUENCES.  189 

all  acts  from  God.  Our  knowledge  of  results  even  of 
physical  acts  is  limited  to  a  very  narrow  circle.  As  there 
are  two  orders  of  acts,  physical  and  intellectual,  so  there 
are  two  orders  of  results,  physical  and  intellectual,  or 
moral.  Man  cannot  tell  the  ultimate  result  of  the  simplest 
purely  physical  act.  Cast  a  pebble  into  the  ocean,  and 
what  are  the  consequences?  If  we  apply  Newton's  law 
of  gravitation  to  this  simple,  physical  act  we  find  that  in 
time  it  will  change  the  relative  positions  of  every  atom 
of  all  the  waters  on  the  face  of  the  globe.  Not  only 
this,  it  will  change  the  relations  of  every  molecule  of 
matter  in  the  universe,  change  the  course  of  the  moon, 
which  recognizes  the  event  by  an  actual  and  real,  though 
immeasurable,  perturbation.  These  changes  will  con- 
tinue as  long  as  matter  and  its  law  last,  for  the  arrange- 
ment of  the  molecules  of  matter  will  never  again  be  the 
same  as  they  would  have  been  if  that  pebble  had  not 
been  cast.  This  is  a  mere  general  outline  of  the  limit- 
less results  of  that  act.  Now,  who  can  tell  or  know,  but 
God,  these  results  in  detail? 

The  results  of  moral  or  human  acts  are  still  more  diffi- 
cult to  know,  for  a  human  act,  that  is  an  intellectual  act, 
has  its  countless  effects  in  the  intellectual  world  in  time 
and  eternity.  A  false  principle  taught  to  a  child  will 
grow  with  it  and  spread  from  it  to  others,  and  from  these 
others  to  yet  others,  and  thus  on  through  the  ages,  and 
when  time  ceases  it  will  continue  into  eternity  and  affect 
heaven  and  hell.  Thus  this  one  act  of  a  false  teacher 
changes  the  current  and  harmony  of  the  world.  This  is  a 
general  outline;  but  who  can  tell  us  the  nature  of  each 
individual  result — of  each  link  in  the  endless  chain?     To 


IQO  NOTES    ON    INGERSOLL. 

know  all  these  consequences  by  experience  we  must  ac- 
tually experience  them;  we  must  not  only  experience 
them  individually  and  in  detail,  but  we  must  also  experi- 
ence their  united  and  combined  result.  This  is  a  task  be- 
yond the  power  of  the  human  race  combined.  Hence  to 
talk  of  learning  results  by  experience  is  to  babble  nonsense 
like  an  infant.  That  man  did  not  get  all  his  knowledge 
of  the  consequences  of  phy^sical  acts  from  God  directly 
we  admit,  with  astonishment  that  a  man  of  your  calibre 
should  deem  it  necessary  to  state  it.  We  must,  however, 
assert  that  man  cannot  associate  facts  with  prior  facts,  in 
the  relation  of  cause  and  effect,  without  an  intuition  or 
primary  revelation  of  that  relation  between  two  events 
which  is  called  cause  and  effect.  In  other  words,  the 
human  mind  could  never  associate  two  events  in  the  re- 
lation to  each  other  of  cause  and  effect  unless  the  idea  of 
this  relationship  had  been  revealed  by  God  in  some  man- 
ner. As  the  fashion  of  denying  everything  is  so  popular 
we  may  as  well  join  in  the  rout  and  deny  that  there  is  any 
such  relation  as  cause  and  effect,  or  cause  and  consequence. 
And  as  long  as  you  deny  the  existence  of  the  first  cause 
we  must  deny  in  toto  that  sequence  of  events  known  as 
cause  and  effect.  Then  until  you  prove  that  there  are 
such  things  as  causes  and  effects,  the  standard  of  morality 
which  you  deduce  from  them  is  but  the  baseless  fabric 
of  a  dream.  Denial,  you  will  observe,  is  a  two-edged 
sword.  You  seem  to  have  taken  it  in  your  head  that 
Christians  admit  anything  and  everything  that  brings  grist 
to  your  infidel  mill,  and  that  anything  you  "admit"  needs 
no  further  proof.  In  this  you  are  mistaken.  The  Chris- 
tian grants  you  nothing— absolutely  nothing.     And  unless 


EXPERIENCE    NO    STANDARD.  I9I 

you  admit  a  first  cause,  God,  he  denies  the  existence  of 
all  causes  whatsoever,  and  therefore  of  all  effects.  If  you 
deny  God  you  deprive  yourself  of  the  right  to  base  a 
standard  of  morals  on  causes  and  effects,  because  without 
God,  the  first  cause,  they  are  inconceivable. 

Ingersoll — *'  If  man  by  actual  experience  discovered 
the  right  and  wrong  of  actions,  is  it  not  utterly  illogical 
to  declare  that  they  who  do  not  believe  in  God  can  have 
no  standard  of  right  or  wrong?" 

Comment — As  man  cannot  by  actual  experience  dis- 
cover the  right  and  wrong  of  actions,  it  follows  that  he 
must  learn  it  in  some  other  way,  and  as  there  is  no  other 
way  left  but  to  learn  it  from  God,  it  is  most  logical  to  de- 
clare that  they  who  do  not  believe  in  God  cannot  have  the 
true  standard  of  right  and  wrong.  Man  cannot  learn  the 
right  and  wrong  of  actions  by  experience,  for  all  human 
experience  is  necessarily  incomplete,  and  all  knowledge 
derived  from  incomplete  experience  must  be  incom- 
plete also.  Hence  a  standard  of  right  and  wrong  that 
is  derived  from  incomplete  experience  must  neces- 
sarily be  incomplete,  imperfect,  defective — in  a  word, 
worthless. 

We  may  learn  some  things  from  the  experience  of  the 
past,  but  if  you  deny  divine  teaching  how  can  you  know 
that  the  experience  of  the  future  may  not  cause  us  to  re- 
ject all  those  things  which  you  imagine  the  experience  of 
the  past  has  taught  us?  How  do  you  know  but  that  the 
experience  of  the  future  may  demonstrate  that  polygamy 
and  slavery  and  wars  are  right,  because  in  the  long  run 
they  may  prove  beneficial  to  society?  How  can  you  as- 
sert, with  any  show  of  consistency,  that  these  are  wrong, 


192  NOTES    ON    INGERSOLL. 

since  experience  has  not  as  yet  spoken  its  last  words  about 
them? 

Ingersoll — "  Consequences  are  the  standard  by  which 
actions  are  judged." 

Comment — Then  since  the  consequences  of  acts  cannot, 
be  known,  this  standard  cannot  be  known.  Philosophers 
heretofore  held  that  effects  took  their  nature  from  their 
cause,  and  not  the  cause  from  the  effects.  They  could 
not  see  how  that  which  is  could  take  its  nature  from  that 
which  is  not,  or  how  an  effect  could  be  the  cause  of  its 
own  cause's  nature.  They  were  keen-sighted  enough  to 
see  that  this  involved  the  dogma  of  Lord  Dundreary,  that 
the  tail  wags  the  dog. 

Ingersoll — "God  or  no  God,  larceny  is  an  enemy  of 
industry." 

Comment — To  say  an  act  is  a  larceny  is  to  determine 
its  nature — its  quality.  You  have  said  that  the  quality 
of  an  action  is  determined  by  its  consequences.  How 
then  can  you  assert  that  any  given  act  is  a  larceny  till 
its  consequences  are  known?  To  assert  larceny,  you 
must  assert  it  of  particular  acts,  for  larceny  in  the  ab- 
stract is  simply  nothing,  and  can  have  none  but  abstract 
consequences,  which  are  no  consequences  at  all,  and  there- 
fore cannot  bean  enemy  of  industry,  unless  it  be  industry 
in  the  abstract,  which  again  is  no  industry  at  all.  Lar- 
ceny, to  injure  industry,  must  be  larceny  in  act  and  po-ac- 
tice— the  act  of  A.,  B.  or  C  But  how  can  you  assert  that 
the  act  of  A.,  B.  or  C.  is  evil  or  larcenous  till  its  conse- 
quences are  known?  for,  according  to  your  philosophy, 
the  nature  of  the  act  of  A  ,  B.  or  C.  can  be  known  and 
judged  only  by  its  consequences. 


PLAUSIBLE    NONSENSE.  I93 

Ingersoll — -"  Industry  is  the  mother  of  prosperity." 

Comment — Industry,  aside  from  industrious  acts,  is 
an  abstraction,  having  no  more  reality  than  larceny  aside 
from  a  larcenous  act.  Industry,  to  exist,  must  exist  as 
the  acts  of  A.,  B.  or  C.  But  here  you  are  again  met  by 
your  philosophy  that  "  consequences  determine  the  quality 
of  actions,"  and  you  cannot  assert  that  the  actions  of 
A.,  B.  or  C.  are  industrious  or  idle  till  you  know  the  con- 
sequences. 

Ingersoll — "  Prosperity  is  good." 

Comment — According  to  your  standard  prosperity  is 
good  only  when  .its  consequences  are  good.  But  the 
philosophy  of  history  teaches  that  prosperity  leads  to 
the  downfall  of  nations  as  well  as  of  individuals.  What 
did  prosperity  do  for  Egypt,  Greece,  and  Rome?  It 
made  the  people  luxurious,  voluptuous  and  imbecile,  and 
buried  the  monuments  of  hardier  ages  in  ruins.  It  was 
the  siren  that  led  Hannibal,  Alexander  and  Csesar  to  un- 
timely graves,  and  Napoleon  to  Moscow  and  Waterloo. 
Prosperity  leads  to  decay,  national,  individual,  intellectual, 
moral  and  physical.  When  prosi)«rity  is  at  its  zenith, 
decay  is  at  the  door;  when  the  tree  is  in  full  bloom  there 
is  but  one  step  to  the  sere" and  yellow  leaf.  Prosperity 
has  evil  consequences;  and  if,  as  you  say,  consequences 
determine  the  quality  of  actions,  how  can  prosperity  be 
good? 

Again.  Prosperity,  aside  from  those  who  prosper,  is 
an  abstraction,  nothing,  and  therefore  the  good  you  assert 
of  it  is  equally  an  abstraction,  a  dehision  and  a  snare. 

Ingersoll — "  God  or  no  God,  rnurder  is  a  crime." 

Comment — It   is  a   bad  thing   for   one  to  forget   one's 


t94  NOTES   ON    INGERSOLL. 

own  principles.  You  have  said  that  *'  consequences  de- 
termine the  quality  of  actions."  How  then  can  you  as- 
sert that  murder  is  a  crime  until  you  know  the  conse- 
quences of  it?  Murder  in  the  abstract  is  at  best  only  a 
crime  in  the  abstract,  which  is  no  crime  at  all.  Murder, 
to  exist,  must  be  the  act  of  A.,  B.  or  C.  Bui  how  can 
you  assert  that  the  act  of  A.,  B.  or  C.  is  murder,  or  a 
crime,  until  you  know  its  consequences?  According  to 
the  new  standard  of  right  and  wrong  set  up  by  you,  I  have 
the  same  right  to  assert  that  murder  is  a  virtue  as  you 
have  to  assert  it  is  a  crime,  until  all  the  consequences  of 
the  so-called  murderous  act  are  known,  since  these  con- 
sequences must  determine  the  nature  of  the  act. 

Ingersoll — "There  has  always  been  a  law  against 
larceny." 

Comment — Yes,  but  the  law  is  unjust  if  larceny  be  a 
virtue.  And  you  cannot  assert  it  is  not,  as  long  as  all 
the  consequences  of  the  larceny  are  not  known,  since  they 
are,  according  to  you,  the  standard  by  which  the  act  is  to 
be  judged.  If  there  is  no  God  the  law  against  larceny 
has  no  moral  or  binding  obligations,  for  if  made  by  man 
it  must  have  been  made  by  those  who  had,  against  those 
who  had  not. 

But  those  who  have  not  are  in  the  majority  in  the  world, 
and  a  minority  have  no  right  to  impose  laws  on  the 
majority.  If  there  is  no  God,  the  real  thieves  are  those 
who  have  and  hold  the  goods  of  this  world  from  the  great 
majority  who  have  not.  This  is  in  fact  the  doctrine  of 
your  infidel  confreres,  the  communists  of  France.  Proud- 
hon,  a  prophet  of  infidelity,  lays  it  down  as  a  maxim  that 
"  property  is  robbery."     The  differenoe  between  you  and 


HIS    CHARACTER    l^    A    FOCUS.  I95 

Proudhon  is  this:  he  denies  God  and  carries  that  denial 
to  its  logical  consequences,  while  yon,  without  an  atom 
of  logic  in  your  head,  deny  God  and  yet  assert  the 
sacredness  of  property.  If  there  be  no  God,  Proudhon 
is  right;  but  God  or  no  God,  you  are  wrong. 

IngersOll — "  As  long  as  men  object  to  being  killed, 
murder  will  be  illegal." 

Comment — Convicted  murderers  object  to  being  killed; 
is  it  therefore  murder  or  illegal  to  execute  them?  But 
here  again  you  show  a  bad  memory.  Only  five  lines  above 
you  say:  "Consequences  are  the  standard  by  which  ac- 
tions are  judged,"  and  now  you  tell  us  that  the  objection 
of  men  to  being  killed  constitutes  the  illegality  of  murder! 
Now,  which  of  these  statements  do  you  intend  us  to  be- 
lieve? Of  course  we  cannot  believe  them  both,  since 
they  are  contradictory.  This  is  the  consequence  of  try- 
ing to  reason  without  a  standard  of  truth  and  morality. 

Ingersoll — "According  to  Mr.  Black,  the  man  who 
does  not  believe  in  a  Supreme  Being  acknowledges  no 
standard  of  right  and  wrong." 

Comment — You  ought  to  be  ashamed  to  misrepresent 
an  honorable  antagonist.  Mr.  Black  never  said  that,  nor 
anything  like  it,  nor  anything  from  which  such  an  infer- 
ence could  be  drawn.  He  complained  of  the  difficulty 
of  arguing  with  a  man  like  you  who  had  no  acknowledged 
standard  of  right  and  wrong.  That  his  complaint  was 
just  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  in  your  reply  to  him 
you  give  half  a  dozen  different  standards^  and  all  contra- 
dictory, as  we  have  just  seen. 

Ingersoll — "  Is  it  possible  that  only  those  who  be- 
lieve in  the  God  who  persecuted  for  opinion's  sake  have 
any  standard  of  right  and  wrong?" 


196  NOTES    ON    INGERSOLL. 

Comment — Only  those  who  believe  in  the  true  God, 
whom  you  falsely  accuse  of  persecuting,  can  have  the  true 
standard  of  right  and  wrong.  That  those  who  do  not  be- 
lieve in  him  may  have  so?ne  standard  is  evident  from  the 
fact  that  you  have  laid  down  half  a  dozen  standards,  such 
as  they  are;  and  no  doubt  you  could  give  more  if  the  ex- 
igencies of  your  argument  required  it.  But  when  Mr. 
Black  spoke  of  a  standard  he  did  not  mean  India  rubber 
strings.  Every  man  has,  or  ought  to  have,  some  one 
standard  by  which  to  regulate  his  conscience  and  his  acts, 
but  you  have  half  a  dozen  worthless  ones;  hence  the 
difficulty  of  knowing  where  to  find  you.  Mr.  Black's 
complaint  is  that  you  have  no  standard  that  holds  you, 
or  that  prevents  you  from  acting  like  the  little  joker  in 
the  game  of  thimble — now  you  see  it,  and  now  you  don't. 

Ingersoll — "Were  the  greatest  men  of  all  antiquity 
without  this  standard?" 

Comment — Which  standard?  Do  you  refer  to  \\\^irye 
standard,  or  to  some  standard?  These  great  men  had  a 
standard — the  will  of  the  gods.  They  thus  recognized  a 
very  important  truth;  namely,  that  the  standard  of  morals 
should  be  a  will  superior  to  the  human  will.  They  erred 
in  locati?ig  this  superior  or  supreme  will,  but  they  recog- 
nized its  necessity  somewhere.  In  doing  this  these  great 
men  paid  a  magnificent  tribute  to  the  true  God  and  to 
human  reason.  These  men  whose  genius  the  world  honors 
were  too  great  to  be  atheists.  They  believed  in  the  ex- 
istence of  God,  and  failed  only  to  identify  him,  or  under- 
stand his  nature.  They  honored  the  true  God  when  by 
mistake  they  accepted  a  false  one,  as  you  would  honor  a 
genuine  United  States  bond  by  accepting   a  counterfeit 


INFINITE    IxXlELLlGENCE.  197 

through  ignorance.  They  had  then  a  standard  of  right 
and  wrong,  and  although  it  was  not  the  true  one,  yet 
they  were  consistent  and  held  themselves  amenable  to  it 
in  their  lives  and  in  their  logic.  Their  philosophy  and 
theology  began  where  yours  end.  It  is  your  misfortune 
that  you  never  studied  them  profoundly,  as  they  deserve 
to  be  studied,  for  they  were  giants,  these  men  of  old. 

Ingersoll — "In  the  eyes  of  the  intelligent  men  of 
Greece  and  Rome,  were  all  deeds,  whether  good  or  evil, 
morally  alike?" 

Comment — No,  sir.  As  we  have  seen,  they  had  a 
standard — the  will  of  the  gods — and  therefore  all  deeds 
were  not,  in  their  eyes,  morally  alike.  Their  standard, 
not  being  the  true  one,  did  not  enable  them  to  correctly 
distinguish  the  right  from  the  wrong,  but  it  taught  them 
that  there  was  a  right  and  a  wrong.  In  this  their  stand- 
ard was  superior  to  any  you  have  advanced;  for  your 
denial  of  God  destroys  all  difference  between  right  and 
wrong,  and  leaves  the  words  crime  and  virtue  without 
a  meaning.  These  men  of  Greece  and  Rome  were  not  so 
stupid  as  to  believe  your  tiieory  that  consequences  deter- 
mine the  nature  of  actions.  They  never  stole  the  truths, 
beauties  and  magnificent  results  of  the  Christian  religion 
and  tried  to  make  believe  they  were  the  fruits  of  Pagan- 
ism, as  modern  infidels  try  to  make  it  appear  that  those 
magnificent  results  are  the  fruits  of  reason  and  experi- 
ence. These  intelligent  men  of  Greece  and  Rome  had 
their  faults,  but  they  were  not  given  to  that  kind  of  lying. 

Ingersoll — "  Is  it  necessary  to  believe  in  the  existence 
of  an  infinite  intelligence,  before  you  have  any  standard 
of  right  and  wrong?" 


198  •  NOTES    ON    INGERSOLL. 

Comment — Yes.  Deny  the  infinite  intelligence,  or 
God,  and  all  deeds  are  morally  alike;  there  is  no  right, 
no  wrong,  and  of  course  no  distinction  between  them. 
Where  there  is  no  right  or  wrong  there  can  be  no  stand- 
ard of  right  and  wrong.  Where  there  is  no  standard 
there  cannot  be  any  standard.  It  will  not  do  to  say  that 
Christians  admit  a  difference  between  right  and  wrong, 
for  they  do  not  admit  it,  if  there  is  no  God;  on  the  con- 
trary, they  deny  it. 

Ingersoll — "  Is  it  possible  that  a  being  cannot  be  just 
and  virtuous  unless  he  believes  in  some  being  infinitely 
superior  to  himself.?" 

Comment — You  have  constructed  this  question  very 
adroitly — to  catch  gudgeons.  It  is  not  necessary  for  every 
being  to  believe  in  some  being  infinitely  superior  to  him- 
self, but  it  is  necessary  for  every  created,  finite  being  to 
so  believe,  in  order  to  know  what  justice  and  virtue  are 
and  conform  his  life  to  them. 

Ingersoll — "If  this  doctrine  be  true,  how  can  God 
be  just  and  virtuous?" 

Comment — Ah!  Precisely.  This  question  supposes 
you  caught  a  gudgeon.  Is  this  play  upon  words  worthy 
the  subject  you  are  treating  of?  Is  it  worthy  a  philosopher 
whose  motto  is  "  honor  bright'  ?  As  your  answer  does 
not  contain  the  doctrine  you  thought  your  prior  question 
would  necessarily  elicit,  your  last  question  is  simply 
ridiculous.  God  is  just  because  he  h  Justice;  and  justice 
and  virtue  are  justice  and  virtue  because  He  is,  and  with- 
out Him  there  is  neither  justice  nor  virtue,  nor  anything 
else.  I  merely  indicate  here  Ciirislian  principles;  to 
enter  into  a  discussion  of  their   metapiiysical  basis  with 


FINITE    AND    INFINITE.  I99 

you  would  be  to  degrade  a  magnificent  science,  of  which 
you  manifest  an  ignorance  which  is  only  commensurate 
with  your  brazen  egotism. 

Ingersoll — "Does  he  (God)  believe  in  some  being  in- 
finitely superior  to  himself?" 

Comment — It  is  not  at  all  necessary.  After  the  trickery 
of  your  former  question  has  been  exposed,  there  is  not 
timber  enough  in  this  last  one  to  nail  an  answer  to. 

Ingersoll — ''  If  there  is  a  God,  infinite  in  power  and 
wisdom,  above  him,  poised  in  eternal  calm,  is  the  figure 
of  justiee." 

Comment — It  is  no  pleasant  task  to  reason  with  a  man 
who  talks  in  this  way.  The  man  who  can  talk  only  in 
this  manner,  has  no  idea  whatever  of  God.  He  is  too 
intellectually  blind  to  see  that  to  place  an  abstraction^ 
QdWtGi  justice,  above  God,  is  to  destroy  God.  Justice  has 
no  existence  of  its  own.  To  exist,  it  must  exist  as  a 
quality,  or  mode,  or  form,  of  something.  Aside  from 
that  which  is  just,  justice  is  a  pure  abstraction — a 
nonentity.  This  needs  only  to  be  said.  And  yet  you 
would  have  us  believe  that  a  7node  is  superior  to  the  real^ 
without  which  mod-es  are  impossible. 

Ingersoll — "There  is  no  world,  no  star,  no  heaven, 
no  hell,  in  which  gratitude  is  not  a  virtue,  and  where 
slavery  is  not  a  crime." 

Comment — Let  us  confine  ourselves  to  this  world.  It 
is  the  only  one  you  professedly  know  anything  about, 
You  have  given  a  standard  of  right  and  wrong,  to  which 
I  hold  you.  You  say:  "Consequences  deterraine  the 
quality  of  actions."  As  long  as  you  hold  yourself  bound 
by  this  standard,  your  talk  about  virtue  and  crime  is  un- 


200  NOTES    ON    INGERSOLL. 

mitigated  hypocrisy;  for,  until  the  consequences  of  acts 
are  known,  there  is  no  difference  whatever  between  virtue 
and  crime. 

Ingersoll — "I  have  insisted,  and  still  insist,  that  it  is 
impossible  for  a  finite  man  to  commit  a  crime  deserving 
infinite  punislmient." 

Comment — A  little  more  reason  and  a  little  less  asser- 
tion would  be  more  becoming  ^^n  a  philosopher.  What 
you  insist  on  here  is  correct,  however,  and  no  Christian 
ever  thought  of  asserting  the  contrary.  Finite  man  can 
no  more  experience  infinite  suffering  than  he  can  experi- 
ence infinite  happiness,  for  between  the  finite  and  the  in- 
finite there  can  be  no  equation.  We  have  had  occasion 
to  call  your  attention  to  this  patent  fact  before.  You 
will  no  doubt  be  astonished  to  learn  that  what  you  insist 
on  so  vigorously  is  asserted  with  equal  vigor  by  Christian 
philosophy.  But  you  had  a  purpose  and  a  meaning  in 
your  statement.  You  are  arguing  against  everlasting 
punishment;  and  you  begin  by  stating  a  self-evident 
proposition.  This  being  admitted,  you  proceed  to  juggle 
in  another,  and  very  different  idea.  Here  is  your  argu- 
ment in  short:  Finite  man  cannot  suffer  infinite  punish- 
ment; therefore  he  cannot  suffer  everlasting  punishment. 
Why  do  you  confound  these  terms?  Was  it  through 
ignorance  or  design?  If  through  ignorance,  you  are  to  be 
pitied;  if  through  design,  you  are  not  honest.  Infinite 
and  everlasting  are  not  convertible  terms.  Man  cannot, 
because  he  is  finite,  suffer  infinite  punishment;  but  it  does 
not  follow,  as  you  seem  to  think,  that  he  cannot  suffer 
everlasting  punishment.  With  this  distinction  your  whole 
argument  on  this  point  collapses  like  a  punctured  balloon. 


A    FALSIFIER.  20I 

Happiness  and  misery  are  limited  by  the  capacity  of  the 
receiver;  2i  finite  receiver  cannot  receive  infinite  happiness 
or  punishment,  but  an  everlasting  receiver  can  receive 
everlasting  happiness  or  misery.  Man  is  everlasting,  and 
therefore  capable  of  everlasting  happiness  or  punishment; 
and  all  your  "insisting"  to  the  contrary  is  of  no  conse- 
quence. 

Ingersoll — **  Of  the  supernatural  we  have  no  con- 
ception." 

Comment — If  you  have  no  conception  of  it,  how  can 
you  afifirm  or  deny  anything  about  it?  To  admit  that  you 
have  no  conception  of  the  supernatural  after  having  talked 
about  it  through  thirty-five  pages  of  the  North  A??ierican 
Review  is  to  advertise  yourself  a  thoughtless  gabbler.  A 
moment's  reflection  should  show  you  that  it  is  absolutely 
impossible  to  think  or  say  anything  whatever — even  non- 
sense— about  that  of  which  you  have  no  conception. 
That  of  which  we  have  no  conception  is  to  us  as  that 
which  is  not,  and  that  which  is  not,  is  not,  and  cannot 
be,  the  object  of  human  thought  or  intelligence.  It  is 
not  surprising  then,  under  the  circumstances,  that  you 
have  said  many  curious  and  wonderful  things  in  your 
reply  to  Mr.  Black. 

Ingersoll — "  Mr.  Black  takes  the  ground  that  if  a 
man  believes  in  the  creation  of  the  universe  *  *  he 
has  no  right  to  deny  anything." 

Comment — This  is  mere  trifling,  and  shows  what  an 
infidel  philosopher  is  capable  of  when  put  to  the  stretch. 
There  is  not  a  word  of  truth  in  what  you  say,  and  you 
kneiv  it  when  you  said  it.  Mr.  Black  takes  no  such  ground 
as  you,  in  utter  disregard  of  the  obligations  of  veracity, 
attribute  to  him. 


k 


202  NOTES    ON    INGERSOLL. 

Ingersoll — "We  should  remember  *  *  that  the 
early  Christians  believed  everything  but  the  truth,  and 
that  they  accepted  Paganism,  admitted  the  reality  of  all 
the  Pagan  miracles." 

Comment — In  making  and  printing  this  statement  you 
lose  all  claim  to  respectful  consideration.  We  must  brand 
it  in  the  whole  and  in  all  its  parts  as  a  falsehood;  and  he 
who  made  it  is  ignorant  or  malicious,  or  both.  And  yet 
this  falsifier  talks  glibly  of  "  honesty"  and  "  honor  bright!" 
IV£  charge  Mr.  Ingersoll  with  falsehood  in  making  the 
above  statement.  We  call  on  him  to  verify  it,  or  stand 
as  a  convicted  falsifier.  A  falsifier  cannot  be  trusted; 
his  glib  talk  of  honesty  and  virtue  must  be  looked  upon 
as  a  snare,  like  that  of  the  profligate  wlio  talks  of  virtu© 
to  his  intended  victim.  We  can  respect  an  enemy,  but 
when  we  find  deceit  and  falsehood  in  his  methods,  we 
relegate  him  to  that  disreputable  class  which  affords 
remunerative  employment  to  detectives  and  policemen. 
A  falsifier  is  a  manufacturer  of  base  coin,  a  cownterfeiter, 
a  fraud. 

We  here  conclude  these  notes,  believing  we  have  ac- 
complished what  we  undertook  to  do.  We  have  said 
enough  to  convince  our  readers  that  Mr.  Ingersoll  is  pro- 
fligate of  statement;  that  he  is  not  to  be  trusted;  that  he 
is  unscrupulous;  that  as  a  logician  and  metaphysician  he 
is  beneath  contempt;  that  he  is  a  mere  galvanizer  of  old 
objections  long  ago  refuted;  that  he  is  ignorant  and 
superficial — full  of  gas  and  gush,  in  a  word,  that  he  is  a 
philosophical  charlatan  of  the  first  water,  who  mistakes 
curious  listeners  for  disciples,  and  applause  for  approval. 

Of  course  we  do   not  expect   him  to   reply  to  us,  and 


A    FALSTFTER.  263 

for  several  reasons.  First,  he  will  not  want  to;  second, 
lie  cannot;  third,  he  can  pretend  not  to  notice  an  obscure 
country  pastor.  Very  well.  Then  let  some  of  his  dis- 
ciples or  admirers  try  to  rehabilitate  his  smirched  char- 
acter. We  hold  ourselves  responsible  to  him,  and  to  all 
the  glib  little  whiffets  of  his  shallow  school. 

Note  to      Ninth    Edition.—As  I  anticipated   Mr.  Ingersoll 
has  publicly  declined  to  reply. 


1 

DATE    DUE 

mm 

mmmmmm- 

' 

-—-^^zo 

5» 

GAYLORD 

PRINTED  IN  US  A. 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 


1    1012  01017  8970 


